Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https  ://arch  i ve . org/detai  Is/scu  Iptu  resof  partOI  m u rr 


THE  SCULPTURES  OF 
THE  PARTHENON 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


A HANDBOOK  OF  GREEK  ARCHEOLOGY. 

Treating  of  Sculpture,  Vases,  Bronzes,  Gems,  Terra-cottas, 
Architecture,  and  Mural  Paintings.  With  Illustrations. 
Crown  8vo.  i8r. 

A HISTORY  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE. 

With  Illustrations.  2 volumes.  Royal  8vo.  36.?. 


London 

JOHN  MURRAY  ALBEMARLE  STREET 


HEAD  OF  YOUTH. 

NORTH  FRIEZE  . 


THE 


SCULPTURES  OF  THE 


PARTHENON 


It  v 


T 


J 


By  A.  S.  MURRAY,  LL.D. 


F.S.A. 


KEEPER  OF  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  ANTIQUITIES 
BRITISH  MUSEUM 


NEW  YORK 

E.  P.  DUTTON  AND  COMPANY 

LONDON:  JOHN  MURRAY,  ALBEMARLE  STREET 
I9°3 


THE  ROYAL  ACADEMY  OF  ARTS 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DEDICATED 
FROM  A DEEP  SENSE  OF  INDEBTEDNESS 
AND 


IN  TOKEN  OF  MANY  FRIENDSHIPS  PAST  AND  PRESENT 


PREFACE 


IN  this  book  I have  taken  as  a starting  point  certain 
lectures  on  the  sculptures  of  the  Parthenon  which  I had 
the  honour  of  addressing  to  the  students  of  the  Royal 
Academy  several  years  ago.  It  was  the  experience  of  these 
lectures  that  has  since  led  me  to  enter  upon  a much  closer 
examination  of  the  sculptures  on  artistic  more  than  on 
archaeological  lines. 

To  assist  the  reader  in  following  an  inquiry  of  this  kind,  it 
was  necessary  to  devise  a scheme  of  illustration  which  would 
embrace  the  whole  of  the  sculptures,  so  far  as  they  are  now 
known  from  originals  still  existing,  or  from  Carrey’s  drawings 
of  portions  since  lost.  With  this  purpose  in  view,  it  has  been 
found  practicable  (i)  to  give  the  frieze  almost  entirely,  as 
we  now  know  it,  in  one  long  folding  sheet.  The  mere 
magnitude  of  the  frieze  as  an  artistic  conception  will  thus 
be  apparent  at  a glance,  and  I trust  that  its  extraordinary 
beauty  in  detail  will  also  be  readily  recognisable  in  the 
process  of  photogravure  which  has  been  employed. 

(2)  A similarly  comprehensive  view  of  the  whole  of  the 
metopes  seemed  undesirable  for  two  reasons  : first,  because  a 
large  proportion  of  those  that  still  exist  on  the  Parthenon 
are  deplorably  damaged ; and  secondly,  because  the  metopes 
of  the  east  and  west  fronts,  even  had  they  been  well 
preserved,  could  not  rightly  have  been  dissociated  from  the 


PREFACE 


viii 

pediment  sculptures  immediately  above  them.  We  have, 
therefore,  placed  the  east  and  west  metopes,  such  as  they 
now  are,  in  connection  with  the  respective  pediments.  It 
has,  however,  been  possible  to  illustrate  on  one  plate  the  entire 
series  of  the  south  metopes,  partly  from  originals  still  well 
preserved,  and  partly  from  Carrey’s  drawings  of  the  missing 
central  groups.  Of  the  north  metopes,  the  one  that  has 
best  survived  is  given  by  itself. 

(3)  As  regards  the  two  pediments,  we  reproduce  Carrey’s 
drawings  of  the  sculptures  as  he  saw  them  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  in  each  case  adding  the  metopes  as  they  now 
appear,  and  completing  the  architectural  framework  which 
he  left  unfinished.  We  give  separately  the  principal  pedi- 
ment sculptures  as  they  now  exist.  We  reproduce  copies 
of  the  gold  and  ivory  statue  of  Athene  within  the  Parthenon, 
and  add  a certain  number  of  illustrations  in  half-tone  plates. 

The  interpretation  of  the  two  pediments  has  been,  and 
still  is,  a subject  of  much  discussion.  The  name  most 
appropriate  for  each  figure  may  be  argued  interminably. 
But  all  these  discussions  revolve  round  the  simple  question, 
Are  the  figures  in  the  angles  of  both  pediments  deities  of 
Olympos,  or  beings  associated  with  the  legendary  history  of 
Attica  ? On  that  question  turns  the  grandeur  of  the  artistic 
conception  as  a whole.  We  must  each  decide  one  way  or 
the  other.  After  that  the  names  of  the  several  figures  are 
of  less  consequence.  Therefore  we  have  dealt  briefly  with 
matters  of  nomenclature  all  through. 


A.  S.  MURRAY. 


Novetnber , 1 902 . 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTORY  . . . i 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  WEST  PEDIMENT  . . . ...  12 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  EAST  PEDIMENT  . . . ...  29 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  SOUTH  METOPES  . . . . 53 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  METOPES  OF  THE  NORTH,  EAST,  AND  WEST  SIDES  . 76 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE  FRIEZE  . . . . ...  83 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  FRIEZE — continued  . . . ...  107 

CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS  . . 126 

CHAPTER  IX 

DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE  IN  CONSECUTIVE  ORDER  . . 144 


INDEX  . 


• 1 71 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


Head  of  Youth,  from  North  Frieze  . Frontispiece 

PLATE 


I. 

View  of  Parthenon  . ... 

To  face  page 

i 

II. 

St.  Petersburg  Vase  and  East  Pediment  of 

Olympia  . . ... 

55 

55 

!3 

III. 

West  Pediment  of  Parthenon  (Carrey)  . 

55 

55 

14 

IV. 

Fragment  of  T (West  Pediment),  Bronze  Group, 

Fragment  of  Metope  16,  South  Side 

55 

55 

22 

V. 

Ilissos,  Horses’  Heads,  Amphitrite  and  Leu- 

cothea  . . ... 

55 

55 

25 

VI. 

East  Pediment  (Carrey) 

55 

55 

29 

VII. 

Theseus  and  three  Horae 

55 

55 

35 

VIII. 

Victory  and  three  Fates 

55 

55 

4i 

IX. 

Madrid  Puteal,  Helios  and  Selene 

55 

55 

47 

X. 

South  Metopes  . ... 

55 

55 

54 

XI. 

Metope  of  North  Side  . ... 

55 

55 

6o 

XII. 

North  Metopes  . ... 

55 

55 

76 

XIII. 

Frieze  . . In  pocket  of  Cover 

XIV. 

Athene  Parthenos  . ... 

55 

55 

126 

XV. 

Gem  and  Medallion  of  Athene  . 

55 

55 

133 

XVI. 

Fragments  of  Frieze,  Originals  in  Athens  . 

55 

55 

144 

XVII. 

Parts  of  Frieze.  Prawn  by  Carrey  and 

Stuart  . . ... 

55 

55 

149 

PLATE  I.  THE  PARTHENON— EAST  FRONT.  Face 


THE  SCULPTURES  OF 
THE  PARTHENON 


CHAPTER  I 


INTRODUCTORY 

[Plate  I.] 

WHEN  the  Parthenon  stood  forth  complete  on  the 
Acropolis  of  Athens  in  or  about  the  year  438  b.c., 
there  was  no  other  building  in  the  whole  of  Greece  com- 
parable even  in  the  mere  extent  and  variety  of  its  sculptures.1 
Imagine  a frieze  522  feet  in  length  sculptured  all  along  with 
figures  nearly  half  life  size,  in  many  parts  densely  crowded 
till  the  marble  could  carry  no  more,  the  whole  in  very 
low  relief  and  executed  with  marvellous  detail.  Above 
the  columns  externally  and  round  all  the  four  sides  of  the 
temple  were  ninety-two  metopes,  each  consisting  of  a group 
of  two  figures  two-thirds  life  size,  in  the  highest  possible 


1 Plutarch,  Pericles , xiii.,  speaking 
of  the  buildings  then  being  erected  in 
Athens  under  the  auspices  of  Pericles, 
including,  of  course,  the  Parthenon, 
says,  “As  the  buildings  rose,  stately  in 
size  and  unsurpassed  in  form  and  grace, 


the  workmen  vied  with  each  other  that 
the  quality  of  their  work  might  be  en- 
hanced by  its  artistic  beauty.  Most 
wonderful  of  all  was  the  rapidity  of 
the  construction.”  (H.  Stuart  Jones, 
Selected  Passages , etc.) 


2 


INTRODUCTORY 


relief,  and  full  of  the  most  beautiful  workmanship.  Within 
each  of  the  two  pediments  or  gables  was  an  immense  group 
of  statues,  the  smallest  equal  to  life  size,  the  central  figures 
colossal.  Lastly,  inside  the  Parthenon  was  the  stupendous 
statue  of  Athene  herself  in  gold  and  ivory  by  Pheidias.  It 
was  he  who  directed  the  whole  of  the  work.1 

The  greater  the  extent  and  variety  of  the  sculptures  the 
more  urgent  was  the  need  of  a unifying  purpose  to  bring  the 
whole  together  into  one  scheme.  The  Parthenon  was  a 
new  temple  to  the  goddess  Athene.  To  her  the  sculptor 
necessarily  turned  for  inspiration.  Her  birth,  her  influence 
on  the  civilisation  of  mankind,  her  special  services  to  Attica, 
and  the  consequent  gratitude  of  the  Athenians,  these  were 
the  themes  which  naturally  arose  in  his  mind.  Accordingly, 
in  the  east  pediment,  the  most  conspicuous  place  externally, 
he  gave  the  birth  of  the  goddess.  In  the  metopes  we  have 
a long  series  of  combats  with  barbarism,  in  which  we  may 
trace  the  state  of  things  which  she  was  born  to  rectify.  In 
the  west  pediment  she  herself  encounters  her  rival,  Poseidon, 
and  defeats  him.  All  this  is  shown  on  the  external  sculp- 
tures. Within  the  colonnade  the  whole  frieze  is  occupied 
with  solemnities  in  honour  of  the  gods,  while  inside  the 
Parthenon  itself  the  gratitude  of  the  Athenians  was  seen 
culminating  in  the  new  colossal  statue  of  gold  and  ivory. 

To  borrow  the  language  of  the  drama,  the  east  pediment 
may  be  called  Act  i.,  representing  the  surprise  of  the  birth  of 


1 Plutarch,  ibid.,  irdvra.  Se  Sieirre  i<al 
7rdvrojv  €7rt(TK07ros  rjv  avroi  [Hepi/cAri] 
'PeiSias',  and  again,  6 8e  ‘PeiSias  elpyd- 
fero  p.iv  Trjs  Grow  to  y^pv crovv  eSos  xal 


tovtov  Srjjuovpyos  ev  ry  trryjXp  rival 
yeypamai,  Trdvra  S’  ijv  cr^eSov  ctt’  airra 
Kcil  7racriv,  cos  ei.pijKa.jiev,  €7recrrdT€i 
tois  re^viTais  Sid  <£iAiav  ITeyoiKAeovs. 


ORIENTATION  OF  THE  PARTHENON 


3 


Athene.  The  metopes  may  be  described  as  a long  choral 
ode,  showing  how  greatly  her  presence  was  needed  by  man- 
kind in  its  conflicts  with  barbarism.  The  west  pediment 
was  Act  ii.,  illustrating  the  encounter  between  Athene  and 
Poseidon.  Then  followed  the  frieze,  equivalent  to  another 
long  choral  ode,  describing  the  solemnity  and  pomp  with 
which  the  Athenians  accompanied  their  gift  of  a new  robe  to 
their  goddess.  The  chryselephantine  statue  may  be  compared 
to  a concluding  burst  of  joy.1 

The  only  public  access  to  the  Acropolis  was  on  the 
west,  through  the  Propylaea.  It  was  therefore  the  west 
front  of  the  Parthenon  which  came  first  into  view.  But 
the  west  was  only  the  secondary  front.  There  was  no 
escape  from  the  rule  that  the  principal  front  must  face  the 
east.  Accordingly  it  was  the  second  act  of  the  drama 
which  the  visitor  saw  first  as  he  approached  the  Parthenon. 
There  he  beheld  Athene  contending  with  Poseidon,  and 
only  later,  when  he  had  passed  round  to  the  east  front, 
recognised  her  birth.  In  an  artistic  sense  this  was  doubtless 
a disadvantage  for  the  pediment  sculptures.  But  what  was 
in  some  measure  a loss  to  the  pediments,  through  the 
inversion  of  the  natural  order  of  events,  was  a remarkable 
gain  to  the  frieze.  There  the  task  of  the  sculptor  was  to 


1 Prof.  Butcher,  in  Some  Aspects  of 
the  Greek  Ge?iius,  p.  36,  says  of  the 
Parthenon,  “In  the  eastern  pediment  is 
sculptured  the  first  act  of  the  drama 
. . . the  birth  of  the  goddess.  ...  In 
the  western  pediment  the  second  act  is 
rehearsed,  the  rivalry  of  Athene  and 
Poseidon.  ...  In  the  sculptured  me- 
topes . . . the  conflict  is  more  clearly 


expressed  . . . and  if  pediment  and 
metope  tell  of  the  remote  past,  the 
splendour  of  the  present  is  unfolded  in 
the  frieze  of  the  cella.”  Similarly  M. 
Perrot,  speaking  of  the  frieze  in  the 
Melanges  Weil , p.  382,  says  : “ C’est  la 
mise  en  scene  de  l’hommage  solennel 
que  la  citd  rendait  , . . k sa  ch£re  et 
puissante  patronne.” 


4 


INTRODUCTORY 


exhibit  in  full  the  Panathenaic  procession,  with  its  prepara- 
tions and  start,  its  progress  through  the  streets  of  Athens, 
and  its  climax  on  the  Acropolis,  where  the  gods  were  seated 
to  receive  the  new  robe  and  the  sacrifice  of  cows  and 
sheep.  On  the  west  end  of  the  frieze,  that  is  on  the  part 

which  was  first  visible  to  spectators  arriving  from  the 

Propylaea,  were  placed  the  preparation  and  start  of  the 
procession,  on  the  east  end  its  climax.  There  remained 
the  two  long  sides  of  the  temple,  north  and  south,  for  the 
display  of  horsemen,  chariots,  musicians,  and  sacrificial 
animals  as  they  passed  through  the  streets.  For  this 

purpose  the  sculptor  required  only  one  long  side,  but 
having  two  to  deal  with,  he  chose  to  make  the  one 
practically  a duplicate  of  the  other,  so  that  a visitor 

starting  from  the  west  end,  as  he  naturally  would  do, 
might  take  his  choice  of  passing  round  by  the  north  or 
the  south  side.  In  either  case  he  would  find  himself 
following  the  procession  and,  as  it  were,  gradually  over- 
taking it,  seeming  to  share  in  its  movement.  If  we  could 
suppose  that  the  procession  had  parted  in  two  longitudinally 
at  some  point  in  its  progress,  uniting  again  at  the  end, 
the  disposition  of  the  groups  on  the  frieze  might  be  quite 
in  order.  But  such  a view  of  the  question  is  impossible. 
Therefore  we  accept  the  duplication  of  the  north  and  south 
friezes  as  not  only  an  artistic  device,  but  a source  of  con- 
venience for  ordinary  spectators.  The  most  natural  thing 
for  a spectator  to  do  after  examining  the  preparation  and 
start  on  the  west  frieze  was  to  turn  to  the  left  and  pass 
round  by  the  north  side,  where  he  would  find  himself  close 
to  many  interesting  objects  on  the  Acropolis.  If  he  turned 


POSITION  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


5 


to  the  right  and  passed  along  by  the  south  side  there  would 
be  little  to  attract  him  outside  the  Parthenon  itself.  The 
sculptor  had  doubtless  foreseen  this,  and  possibly  that  is 
why  he  was  less  exacting  in  the  execution  of  the  south 
frieze.  Later  on,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  much 
negligence  there. 

The  frieze  being  visible  only  in  the  colonnade  or,  at 
farthest,  on  the  steps  of  the  temple,  and  therefore  in 
diffused  light,  was  by  a true  instinct  sculptured  in  very 
low  relief  with  no  pronounced  shadows  except  round  the 
outer  contours.  In  this  respect  we  may  notice  a marked 
difference  in  the  frieze  of  the  Theseum,  which  also  was 
seen  only  from  the  colonnade.  There  the  relief  is  as  high 
as  in  the  metopes  of  the  same  building,  which  were  exposed 
to  the  direct  light  of  the  sun.  Yet  what  was  good  for  the 
one  could  not  have  been  good  for  the  other.  Or  again,  in 
more  archaic  buildings,  as  at  Assos  in  the  Troad  and  at 
Delphi,  we  find  friezes  in  low  relief  placed  externally  under 
the  full  light  of  the  sun.  Apparently  it  was  the  sculptor 
of  the  Parthenon  who  first  laid  down  the  rule  that  reliefs 
in  a diffused  light  must  be  kept  low,  in  exposed  light  as 
high  as  possible. 

The  frieze  being  placed  at  a great  height,  and  visible  only 
at  an  acute  angle,  the  sculptor  took  the  precaution  of  tilting 
forward  the  upper  parts  of  the  figures  so  as  to  make  them 
appear  vertical,  seen  from  below,  while  at  the  same  time 
the  background  of  the  relief  remains  perpendicular.  That 
was  not  altogether  a novelty.  We  see  it  also  in  the  capital 
of  a column  from  the  archaic  temple  of  Diana  at  Ephesus. 
It  was  a question  of  optics.  But  the  precise  amount  of 


6 


INTRODUCTORY 


projection  in  the  relief  of  the  frieze  was  not  otherwise 
a thing  which  could  be  calculated  on  any  system  of  pro- 
portions. The  common  rule  that  a figure  in  relief  should 
be  one-third  of  its  natural  thickness  was  not  to  be  thought 
of,  still  less  Plato’s  notion  that  figures  in  relief  on  stelae 
were  represented  as  if  bisected  vertically.1  The  whole 
question  was  how  to  attain  the  greatest  explicitness  in  a 
long  composition  mostly  crowded  with  figures  two  or  three 
deep,  exhibited  under  diffused  light  and  at  a considerable 
distance  from  the  eye.  In  these  circumstances  one  might 
have  expected  to  find  all  inner  details  sacrificed  to  the 
main  outlines  of  the  procession.  Such,  however,  is  not 
the  case.  The  inner  modelling  of  horse  and  man  is  indeed 
kept  so  low  as  to  be  invisible  at  a comparatively  short 
distance.  But  it  is  there,  all  the  same,  in  inexpressible 
beauty. 

The  metopes  presented  a complicated  problem.  For  the 
sake  of  the  light  the  figures  had  to  be  in  the  highest  possible 
relief.  For  the  sake  of  the  architecture  they  could  not  be 
more  than  two-thirds  life  size.  Yet  certain  of  them  had  to 
be  placed  immediately  under  the  colossal  statues  of  the  pedi- 
ments, and  therefore  were  seen  in  the  same  glance  with  the 
pediments.  The  result  might  have  been  an  apparent  conflict 
between  the  two  sets  of  figures,  so  widely  different  in  pro- 
portions ; and  probably  it  was  to  avoid  an  effect  of  this  kind 
at  Olympia  that  the  metopes  of  the  temple  of  Zeus  were 
withdrawn  within  the  colonnade,  so  as  not  to  be  visible  at  the 
same  moment  as  the  pediments.  But  on  the  Parthenon 

1 Symfios.  19  : He  calls  them  Xicrirai,  or  “slices”  of  men,  and  argues  that  Zeus 
made  men  similarly  in  two  halves. 


POSITION  OF  THE  METOPES 


7 


we  find  that  the  deeply  grooved  triglyphs  which  separate 
the  metopes  into  isolated  groups  have  the  happy  effect  of 
imparting  a subsidiary,  decorative  character  to  the  metopes, 
somewhat  analogous  to  the  predella  of  a picture.  Thus, 
instead  of  being  in  collision  with  the  pediments,  the  metopes 
act  as  an  enriching  border  below  them.  It  has  long  been 
held  that  the  metopes  which  have  survived  from  the  south 
side  of  the  Parthenon  have  every  appearance  of  having 
been  the  work  of  a sculptor  who  had  not  been  able  to 
shake  off  certain  traditions  of  an  older  and  harder  school. 
But  it  is  not  safe  to  judge  in  this  way  from  a comparatively 
small  portion  of  an  extensive  design.  The  other  metopes 
still  remaining  on  the  building,  though  now  greatly  damaged, 
seem  to  differ  largely  in  style  from  those  just  mentioned. 
Besides,  a torso  in  the  British  Museum,  which  had  con- 
stantly been  regarded  as  that  of  a Lapith  from  one  of  the 
south  metopes,  was  proved  some  years  ago  to  belong  to 
one  of  the  boys  in  the  west  pediment.  That  was  a warning 
against  hasty  inferences  as  to  distinctions  of  style  in  different 
parts  of  the  sculptures. 

So  vast  a scheme  of  sculpture  as  that  of  the  Parthenon 
must  have  surpassed  the  faculties  of  any  one  man  to  invent, 
direct,  and  supervise  within  a reasonable  time.  We  are 
told  that  Pheidias,  besides  having  himself  made  the  colossal 
gold  and  ivory  statue  of  Athene  within  the  temple,  was 
appointed  by  Pericles  to  direct  all  the  public  works  then 
proceeding  in  Athens,  including  the  Parthenon.  The  marvel 
was  with  what  speed  these  works  were  accomplished.  It  is 
specified  that  in  architectural  matters  he  had  the  assistance 
of  Callicrates  and  Ictinos,  and  that  in  other  directions  also 


8 


INTRODUCTORY 


he  had  the  services  of  craftsmen  whose  names  are  not  given. 
Among  these  latter  may  well  have  been  his  favourite 
pupils,  Alcamenes  and  Agoracritos.  In  time  it  may  be 
possible  to  trace  the  handiwork  of  these  two  pupils  on  the 
Parthenon  sculptures.  But  at  present  our  information  is  too 
vague,  first,  as  regards  the  distinctive  styles  of  Alcamenes 
and  Agoracritos,  and  secondly,  as  regards  the  limitations  of 
a man  of  commanding  genius  as  Pheidias  undoubtedly  was. 
All  we  know  of  Alcamenes  points  to  his  excellence  in  single 
statues  of  deities.  Pheidias,  on  the  other  hand,  was  re- 
nowned for  the  wealth  and  splendour  of  his  imagination. 
The  combination  of  such  a master  and  such  a pupil  was 
everything  that  could  be  desired,  and,  indeed,  we  are  not 
surprised  that  comparisons  have  been  made  between  the  so- 
called  Fates  of  the  Parthenon  and  a presumed  copy  of  the 
“ Aphrodite  in  the  Gardens  ” by  Alcamenes,  so  far  as 
concerns  the  treatment  of  the  drapery.  Yet  who  knows 
but  Pheidias  himself  had  advanced  on  the  same  lines  as  his 
pupil,  bestowing  on  individual  figures  or  groups  charms  of 
detail  which  were  not  really  required  by  their  function  in  a 
great  composition  ? We  are  told  of  a competition  between 
Pheidias  and  Alcamenes  for  a statue  of  Athene  which  was  to 
be  placed  on  a height;  that  Pheidias  had  made  due  allowance 
for  the  height,  but  that  Alcamenes,  not  understanding  rightly 
the  effect  of  distance,  had  finished  his  statue  with  elaborate 
care.  According  to  the  tale,  the  statue  by  Pheidias  was  a 
source  of  ridicule  until  it  was  raised  to  its  proper  height. 
Thereupon  the  ridicule  was  turned  against  Alcamenes.  The 
story  may  be  silly  in  some  respects,  but  there  was  probably 
good  authority  for  it  so  far  as  concerned  the  essential 
difference  between  the  two  sculptors.1 

1 Tzetzes,  Chil.  viii.  353. 


CONSTRUCTION  OF  THE  PARTHENON 


9 


In  the  erection  of  public  buildings  in  Greece  it  appears  to 
have  been  usual  to  have  an  official  Board  charged  to  super- 
vise the  progress  of  the  works,  and  to  arrange  contracts  with 
sculptors,  architects,  and  craftsmen.  In  several  instances  the 
records  of  the  Boards  have  survived,  inscribed  on  marble 
stelae.  One  of  the  most  interesting  gives  us  the  contracts 
for  the  temple  of  Asclepios  at  Epidauros.  And  that  there 
had  been  a Board  of  this  kind  for  the  Parthenon  appears 
from  a fragment  of  papyrus  in  Strassburg.1  But  whether 
any  such  Board  would  have  had  the  power  of  choosing 
the  subjects  to  be  represented  is  doubtful.  We  know  that 
Pheidias  had  much  influence  with  Pericles,  and  presumably 
these  two  had  selected  the  general  scheme  of  the  sculptures. 

How  long  the  Parthenon  had  lasted  in  its  original  entirety 
and  splendour  we  know  not.  Down  to  the  second  century 
of  our  era  we  read  of  it  as  still  intact,  with  the  one  exception 
that  the  gold  of  the  colossal  Athene  had  been  made  off  with 
during  a revolt  in  Athens.  But  after  the  second  century 
there  was  apparently  no  thought  of  preserving  the  Parthenon 
against  the  effects  of  negligence  and  weather,  to  say  nothing 
of  possible  earthquakes.  The  early  Christians,  who  made  it 
a church,  had  no  interest  in  its  sculptures,  still  less  the  Turks, 
who  subsequently  used  it  as  a mosque,  and  in  the  end, 
when  bombarded  by  the  Venetians  in  1687,  had  a store  of 
powder  in  it.  A too  well  aimed  shell  from  the  Venetians 
caused  a terrific  explosion.  The  result  was  a great  gap 
across  the  middle  of  the  Parthenon,  involving  the  destruction 
of  the  centre  metopes  and  much  of  the  frieze.  To  add  to 
this  calamity,  the  Venetian  general,  Morosini,  attempted  to 

1 Bruno  Keil,  Anonymus  Argentinensis , p.  75. 

C 


IO 


INTRODUCTORY 


lower  and  carry  off  the  chariot  group  of  Athene  in  the  west 
pediment.  But  his  tackle  gave  way,  and  the  group  was 
broken  into  fragments. 

Some  years  previous  to  the  Venetian  bombardment  it 
happened,  fortunately,  that  a French  Ambassador  to  the 
Porte,  famous  in  his  day — the  Marquis  de  Nointel — had 
employed  an  artist  to  make  drawings  for  him  of  the  Par- 
thenon sculptures.  These  drawings  exist  now  in  the 
Bibliotheque  Nationale  in  Paris,1  and  are,  in  fact,  the  only 
evidence  we  possess  as  to  large  sections  of  the  sculptures 
which  have  disappeared.  They  are  therefore  invaluable. 
In  their  way  they  are  masterly  and  truthful — very  different 
from  the  fanciful  sketches  of  Cyriac  of  Ancona  or  San 
Gallo  in  the  fifteenth  century,  or  such  wild  compositions 
as  that  of  D’Ortieres  in  1687. 

In  the  first  years  of  the  nineteenth  century  Lord  Elgin 
removed  those  of  the  sculptures  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  while  his  colleague,  the  French  Ambassador  to 
the  Porte,  M.  Choiseul  - Gouffier,  appropriated  a slab  of 
the  frieze  and  two  metopes.  The  slab  of  frieze  and  one 
of  these  metopes  are  now  in  the  Louvre.  The  other 
metope  was  recovered  for  the  British  Museum.  Nearly 
the  whole  of  the  west  frieze,  the  metopes  of  the  east 
and  west  fronts  remain  on  the  building,  as  do  also  such 
of  the  north  metopes  as  were  spared  by  the  explosion 
in  1687.  Several  figures  of  the  west  pediment  are  still 
in  situ , badly  damaged,  like  all  the  rest  of  the  sculptures 

1 Reproduced  by  photography  in  folio  count  of  the  Marquis  de  Nointel,  see 
form  by  M.  Omont,  Dessins  des  Sculp-  M.  le  Comte  Albert  Vandal,  L'Odyssce 
lures  du  Parthenon , 1898.  For  an  ac-  d’un  Ambassadeur  (1673-1675). 


REMOVAL  OF  SCULPTURES  n 

now  on  the  building.  In  the  Elgin  Room  of  the  British 
Museum  may  be  seen  two  sets  of  plaster  casts  from  the 
west  frieze,  the  one  set  made  for  Lord  Elgin,  the  other 
after  an  interval  of  about  seventy  years.  How  the  marbles 
had  suffered  during  that  period  is  only  too  obvious. 
Apparently  there  is  no  means  of  stopping  the  decay  of 
the  marble  when  it  has  once  got  so  far ; but  it  is  sad  to 
think  how  short  the  time  may  be  before  the  sculptures 
yet  on  the  Parthenon  become  quite  unrecognisable.  It  is 
the  Elgin  casts  that  are  given  in  our  plate  of  the  frieze. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 

[Plates  II.-V.] 

FROM  its  very  nature,  the  triangular  shape  of  a pedi- 
ment had  presented  difficulties  to  Greek  sculptors 
in  the  earliest  times,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  archaic 
remains  now  to  be  seen  on  the  Acropolis  of  Athens. 
Apparently  the  first  successful  solution  of  the  problem — 
how  to  utilise  such  a space  for  a sculptured  composition 
with  figures  in  the  round — was  the  pediments  of  Aegina, 
particularly  the  west  pediment,  where  the  incidents  of  a 
battlefield  are  ingeniously  adapted  to  the  given  triangular 
space.  In  the  acute  angles  are  wounded  men  lying  with 
their  feet  towards  the  narrowest  part,  and  raising  them- 
selves on  their  elbows  so  far  as  space  would  allow ; next 
come  bowmen  in  their  proper  attitude  of  kneeling ; then  a 
warrior  hurrying  to  the  front  half  bent ; and  finally,  towards 
the  centre,  the  protagonists,  men  of  larger  mould  than  the 
others,  like  Homeric  heroes  ; and  lastly,  in  the  very  centre, 
an  invisible  goddess  interfering  to  stay  the  combat.  What 
we  see  is  by  no  means  a realistic  battle.  Such  incidents 
only  are  chosen  as  are  best  suited  to  the  space ; nor  is 
that  the  sole  justification  of  the  sculptor  in  this  instance. 


PLATE  II.  ST.  PETERSBURG  VASE 


COMPOSITION 


i3 


In  every  multifarious  scene  of  life  the  artist  must  exercise 
selection.  Even  an  epic  poet  is  not  exempt. 

The  next  advance  was  in  the  east  pediment  of  the  temple 
of  Zeus  at  Olympia  (PI.  II.,  Fig.  1).  There  we  have  still  the 
protagonists  in  the  centre,  with  an  invisible  deity  between 
them  ; but  the  two  flanks  of  the  pediment  are  now  occupied 
by  obviously  secondary  persons  in  the  character  of  attendants 
and  onlookers.  In  each  of  the  two  acute  angles  a river 
god  reclines,  raising  himself  to  watch  the  scene.  Thus 
in  the  presence  of  onlookers  in  the  flanks  we  have  a new 
element  of  artistic  composition — a great  central  group  of 
commanding  importance,  whose  action  is  being  watched 
by  persons  who  represent  the  locality  and  are  interested 
in  the  result. 

Next,  in  order  of  time,  came  the  Parthenon  pediments. 
There  also  we  find  the  new  principle  of  composition — a 
great  central  group  flanked  on  each  side  by  secondary 
beings.  But  there  is  this  momentous  difference,  that, 
instead  of  a single  deity  appearing  in  the  very  centre  like 
a ghost  to  stay  the  combat,  we  have  in  each  pediment  of 
the  Parthenon  a central  group  of  deities  acting  and  re- 
acting on  each  other.  The  deities  themselves  are  now  the 
protagonists  ; that  was  a vast  change  on  the  older  order 
of  ideas.  No  wonder  if,  previous  to  the  discovery  of  the 
Olympia  sculptures,  there  were  students  who  strove  hard 
to  convince  themselves  that  in  each  pediment  of  the  Par- 
thenon the  whole  scene  was  filled  by  deities  alone.  In 
those  days  it  was  easy  to  defend  an  interpretation  of  this 
kind ; but  even  then  it  found  few  adherents,  and  now  such 
views  can  only  be  maintained  in  defiance  of  the  east 


14 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 


pediment  of  Olympia,  with  its  secondary  beings  in  the 
flanks.  So  far  as  we  know,  no  one  cherishes  these  views 
any  longer. 

It  would  have  been  more  appropriate  to  begin  here  with 
the  east  pediment  of  the  Parthenon,  which  was  the  first 
act  of  the  drama.  But  amid  the  accidents  of  time  it  has 
happened  that  the  west  pediment,  though  now  a greater  wreck, 
is  in  reality  better  known  to  us,  thanks  to  the  drawings 
of  it  made  by  Carrey1  in  the  seventeenth  century  (PI.  III.), 
previous  to  its  destruction  by  the  Venetians  (1687).  Besides 
Carrey’s  drawings  and  the  few  sculptures  still  left,  most 
of  them  fragmentary,  we  have  only  the  simple  words  of 
Pausanias  that  the  subject  was  the  strife  between  Athene 
and  Poseidon  for  divine  sovereignty  over  the  land  of  Attica. 
From  these  combined  sources  we  see  at  once  that  the  centre 
of  the  pediment  had  been  occupied  by  Athene  and  Poseidon 
as  the  two  great  protagonists.  The  goddess  had  arrived 
in  a chariot  (biga),  and,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  Poseidon 
must  have  come  on  the  scene  in  the  same  manner,  though 
his  chariot  was  destroyed  before  Carrey’s  time.  Each 
chariot  had  a driver,  with  an  attendant  on  foot,  and  thus 


1 It  is  usual  to  ascribe  the  drawings 
of  the  Parthenon  sculptures  now  in  the 
Biblioth&que  Nationale  in  Paris  to  a 
French  artist,  Carrey,  who  had  been 
employed  in  Athens  by  a famous 
French  ambassador,  the  Marquis  de 
Nointel.  But  in  recent  years  it  has 
been  argued  that  Carrey’s  services  did 
not  begin  till  after  these  drawings  had 
been  completed  by  previous  draughts- 
men who  had  accompanied  de  Nointel. 
It  may  be  an  injustice  to  these  artists 
if  we  continue  to  speak  of  the  drawings 


as  the  work  of  Carrey.  But  as  the 
matter  is  not  yet  altogether  beyond 
dispute,  we  shall  still  use  Carrey’s  name 
for  convenience.  See  Omont,  Dessins 
des  Sculptures  du  Parthenon , 1898, 
p.  4,  and  Babelon,  Compte-re?idu  de 
l ’A cademie  des  Inscr.,  1900,  p.  262, 
both  of  whom  rely  on  the  researches 
of  M.  le  Comte  Albert  Vandal  among 
the  papers  of  the  Marquis  de  Nointel 
in  his  LOdyssee  d'un  Ambassadeur : 
Les  Voyages  du  Marquis  de  Nointel , 
1673-1675  (Paris,  1900). 


SUBJECT  AND  COMPOSITION 


i5 


the  whole  centre  of  the  pediment  was  occupied  by  one 
great  group,  closed  in  on  each  side  by  the  two  chariots. 
Within  this  group  there  was  a further  division,  consisting 
of  the  two  deities  themselves,  represented  at  that  stage 
of  the  contention  between  them  when  Athene  had  pro- 
duced her  olive  tree  on  the  Acropolis  and  Poseidon  had 
made  his  spring  of  water  flow.  Thus  the  moment  of 
greatest  intensity  had  just  been  reached  ; and  this  is  amply 
reflected  in  the  action  of  the  two  contending  deities,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  rearing  horses  of  Athene.  That  a 
similar  degree  of  excitement  had  been  shown  by  the  horses 
of  Poseidon  is  clear  from  the  bearing  of  his  charioteer, 
which  we  possess,  O,  and  in  a measure  also  from  the  heads 
of  his  two  horses,  which  have  been  preserved  (PI.  V.). 

At  this  stage  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  the 
east  pediment  of  Olympia  presents  under  a somewhat  older 
type  this  same  principle  of  a great  middle  group  closed 
in  by  two  chariots  facing  the  centre,  and  serving  to  isolate 
as  well  as  to  magnify  the  protagonists.  At  Olympia  the 
figures  in  the  two  wings  of  the  pediment  are  obviously 
4o€-aP-and--seGondary_heings — in  a word,  interested  spectators. 
That,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  was  a striking  advance 
on  the  older  methods  of  composition.  It  introduced  a new 
touch  of  nature,  which  must  have  appealed  to  the  poetic 
instincts  of  a great  sculptor  coming  immediately  after.  But 
even  apart  from  considerations  of  a poetic  kind,  we  see  at 
once  from  Carrey’s  drawing  of  the  west  pediment  of  the 
Parthenon  that  the  figures  in  the  two  wings  are  markedly 
dissociated  from  the  central  group,  except  as  interested 
spectators.  It  seems  inconceivable  that  these  figures  so 


i6 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 


ostentatiously  cut  off  from  the  central  group  can  be  deities. 
By  their  presence  they  indicate  the  permanent  effects  of 
the  momentary  dispute  of  the  deities  on  the  district  in 
question — that  is,  Attica.  The  produce  of  the  land,  es- 
pecially olive-growing,  was  to  be  supreme  over  sea-faring. 
It  was  what  would  now  be  called  a “ Little  Athens  ” policy. 
We  need  say  no  more  concerning  the  general  composition 
of  this  pediment.  Our  troubles  will  begin  when  we  have 
to  decide  each  for  himself  how  far  the  figures  in  the  angles 
are  local  heroes  or  local  personifications.  The  one  thing 
to  bear  in  mind  is  that  local  heroes  may  after  all  be  only 
local  personifications  crystallised  into  more  popular  forms,  in 
which  case  a river-god,  of  whom  we  know  only  the  name, 
may  reasonably  appear  side  by  side  with  Cecrops,  who, 
though  equally  a personification  to  begin  with,  had  passed 
over  into  the  legendary  history  of  Athens. 

To  take  the  figures  one  by  one,  we  begin  as  of  right  with 
the  central  group.  And  first  it  will  be  of  interest  to  notice  a 
Greek  vase  in  St.  Petersburg  on  which  is  painted  the  contest 
of  Athene  and  Poseidon  (PI.  II.,  Fig.  2).  In  the  centre 
between  them  is  an  olive  tree  with  the  serpent  of  Athene 
twined  round  its  stem  and  Nike  among  the  branches.  On  the 
left  is  Athene  in  recoil  from  her  final  act,  and  at  the  same 
time  turning  towards  her  chariot  to  leave  the  scene.  On 
the  right  Poseidon  seizes  by  the  bridle  a horse,  below  which 
are  the  brackish  pool  of  water  and  the  dolphins.  Doubtless 
this  one  horse  is  a sufficient  attribute  of  Poseidon,  but  com- 
paring the  vase,  so  far  as  it  goes,  with  the  west  pediment, 
we  must  conclude  that  the  one  horse  in  effect  represents 
the  two  horses  of  his  chariot.  As  a result  of  this  com- 


REMAINS  OF  CENTRAL  GROUP 


i7 


parison  we  must  further  recognise  the  olive  tree  between 
the  deities  as  equally  applicable  to  the  centre  of  the  pedi- 
ment. Whether  there  were  there  also  the  serpent  and  the 
Nike  must  be  left  in  suspense. 

The  chariot  of  Athene  we  know  from  Carrey’s  drawings, 
but  by  his  time  the  horses  of  Poseidon  had  disappeared. 
The  heads  of  his  two  horses  have,  however,  been  re- 
covered on  the  Acropolis.  We  give  them  as  they  were 
probably  intended  to  be  seen  (PI.  V.),  the  nearer  head 
sculptured  in  a large,  grand  manner ; the  farther  head  is 
only  roughed  out,  and  at  the  same  time  has  been  sliced  off 
at  the  back  to  fit  against  the  vertical  wall  of  the  pediment.1 
Curiously  enough,  the  ear  of  the  farther  horse  had  been 
pricked  forward  strongly,  and  most  probably  the  ears  of 
the  nearer  horse  had  been  similarly  rendered  to  indicate 
sudden  surprise.  The  horses  of  Athene  were  lost  through 
Morosini’s  attempt  to  lower  them,  and  we  cannot  now  say 
from  Carrey’s  drawings  whether  their  ears  also  had  been 
pricked  forward.  It  would  almost  seem  not. 

The  charioteer  of  Poseidon,  O,  exists  still  in  marble  in  the 
British  Museum  as  well  as  in  Carrey’s  drawing,  though  in 
both  cases  fragmentary  (PI.  V.).  We  are  inclined  to  recognise 
in  her  attitude  and  in  the  violence  with  which  her  scarf  is 
twisted  up  round  her  shoulders  more  action  than  is  per- 
ceptible in  the  opposite  charioteer  of  Athene,  G.  The 
broad  girdle  round  her  waist  and  her  bare  leg,  as  shown 
in  Carrey,  seem  to  give  her  an  air  of  distinction,  but 

1 Michaelis  assigned  these  heads  wrongly  to  the  chariot  of  Athene,  as  Sauer 
has  already  pointed  out. 

D 


i8 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 


whether  these  features  are  sufficient  to  justify  the  name 
that  has  often  been  given  her  of  Amphitrite,  the  spouse 
of  Poseidon,  we  are  not  prepared  to  say.  Carrey  was 
in  time  to  preserve  also  in  his  drawing  a female  figure,  N, 
hasting  to  the  centre.  This  figure  corresponds  to  the 
Hermes  on  the  farther  side  of  the  horses  of  Athene.  We 
shall  see  that  on  the  frieze  each  chariot  is  accompanied 
by  a man  on  foot,  whose  function  was  to  assist  the  driver 
in  keeping  his  team  in  order,  and  usually  he  is  there  also 
placed  at  the  farther  side  of  the  horses.  The  divine  chariots 
in  the  pediment  may  have  been  in  no  need  of  such  help. 
But  clearly  this  was  an  artistic  device  of  the  time,  to  counter- 
act in  a measure  the  long  horizontal  masses  of  the  horses 
by  a standing  figure  at  the  farther  side.  We  may  therefore 
regard  both  the  Hermes  and  this  female  figure  as  artistic 
elements  rather  than  as  beings  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
myth. 

Some  have  proposed  to  identify  this  female  figure,  N,  behind 
the  missing  horses  of  Poseidon  with  the  torso  of  Victory  at 
present  placed  in  the  east  pediment  in  the  Elgin  Room  (PI. 
V 1 1 1 . , F ig.  i ).  In  action  and  costume  both  are  much  alike.  B ut 
there  is  a marked  difference  in  the  left  arms.  In  our  torso  of 
Victory  the  left  arm  has  been  raised  high,  showing  the  arm- 
pit,  whereas  in  Carrey’s  drawing  of  the  west  pediment  the 
left  arm  falls  downwards  with  a scarf  over  it,  of  which  there 
is  no  trace  on  the  Victory.  Carrey  was  too  observant  a 
draughtsman  to  make  an  error  of  that  kind.  Besides,  our 
Victory  had  wings,  which  had  been  fitted  into  deep  sockets 
in  the  back  of  her  shoulders,  but  are  now  lost.  It  is  possible, 
no  doubt,  that  Carrey’s  figure  had  wings  originally,  which 


REMAINS  OF  CENTRAL  GROUP 


i9 


had  been  lost  before  his  time,  but  in  that  case  the  figure 
would  obviously  not  have  responded  as  she  otherwise  does 
to  the  Hermes,  H,  beside  Athene’s  chariot.  Nor  can  a Victory 
on  the  side  of  Poseidon  be  reconciled  with  the  situation.  He 
was  defeated. 

Great  as  has  been  the  wreck  of  the  central  group,  we  can 
still  in  a measure  realise  the  composition  from  Carrey’s 
drawing,  and  the  style  from  the  torsos  and  fragments  that 
remain  (PI.  V.).  The  fragmentary  body  of  Poseidon,  M,  which 
we  possess  is  not  only  grand  and  true,  but  without  it  we  have 
no  means  of  judging  how  the  sculptor  of  the  Parthenon  had 
treated  the  colossal  figures  in  the  very  centre  of  his  two 
pediments.  The  fragment  of  the  breast  of  Athene,  L,  is 
similarly  grand  and  simple.  The  torso  of  the  Hermes  is 
much  defaced  in  front,  but  the  back  has  been  fairly  well 
preserved,  and  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  best  examples  of  the 
care  bestowed  on  the  invisible  backs  of  the  figures.  Nature 
has  prescribed  that  in  man  the  front  view  shall  display  most 
fully  the  vital  organs,  and  in  that  respect  the  sculptor  of  the 
Parthenon  has  taken  her  lead.  He  has,  perhaps,  gone  a little 
further  sometimes,  though  not  in  the  Hermes.  We  have 
already  noticed  the  existing  torso  of  Poseidon’s  charioteer, 
and  need  only  add  that  in  Carrey’s  drawing  there  is  a sea- 
monster  under  her  feet  corresponding  to  the  dolphins  on  the 
St.  Petersburg  vase.  Creatures  of  that  kind  were,  doubtless, 
impossible  on  the  Acropolis,  but  how  otherwise  was  the 
sculptor  to  indicate  the  pool  of  brackish  water  which 
Poseidon  had  just  struck? 

In  our  view  the  two  contending  deities  were  conceived  as 
invisibly  present  on  the  Acropolis  beside  the  actual  olive  tree 


20 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 


and  pool  which  they  had  created.1  Their  charioteers  were 
equally  invisible  and  present  on  the  Acropolis.  But  the 
figures  in  the  two  wings,  consisting  of  interested  spectators 
in  the  form  of  local  heroes  or  local  personifications,  were  not 
necessarily  there  also.  To  assuime'^^  present  on 

the  Acropolis  seems  a far  too  narrow'  and  literal  inter- 
pretation of  a divine  incident  which  affected  the  whole  land 
of  Attica.  It  is  true  that,  according  to  a late  version  of  the 
myth,  Cecrops  was  present asjudge,  and  gave  his  decision 
in  favour  of  Athene.  That,  however,  does  not  imply  that  he 
was  on  the  Acropolis  at  the  moment.  As  we  have  said, 
there  is  in  the  artistic  composition  of  the  pediment  as  a 
whole  a strong  demarcation  between  the  great  central  group 
and  the  wings.  No  doubt  this  demarcation  may  only  be 
meant  to  indicate  a separation  between  the  divine  beings,  by 
nature  invisible,  and  the  local  beings.  But  it  may  mean  also 
a separation  in  space. 

It  is  now  agreed  that  the  figures  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  in  the  left 
wing  are  Cecrops  and  his  three  daughters  with  the  boy 
Erichthonios.  We  recognise  Cecrops  from  the  serpent,  on 
whose  coils  his  left  hand  rests.  He  was  a being  of  a double 
nature — a man  with  the  legs  of  a serpent.2  But  the  sculptor 
has  here  been  content  to  indicate  this  by  a serpent  at  his 
side.  One  of  his  daughters  has  rushed  to  him  in  alarm, 
casting  herself  on  her  knees,  and  throwing  her  arm  round  his 

1 The  olive  tree  was  destroyed  during  2 roy  &i<f)vrj  KeKpoira.  Anth.  Gr. 
the  Persian  sack  of  the  Acropolis,  but  App.  14  (ed.  Jacobs).  This  group  of 
on  the  second  day  thereafter  sent  forth  Cecrops  and  his  daughters  (B,  C)  re- 

a shoot,  says  Herodotus  viii.  55.  Pau-  mains  on  the  Parthenon,  except  a 

sanias  tells  that  on  the  same  day  a shoot  fragment  of  the  serpent  which  is  in  the 
two  cubits  long  appeared  (I.  26,  6,  and  British  Museum. 

I.  27,  2). 


ANGLE  GROUPS 


2 I 

neck.  Her  mantle,  twisted  among  her  feet,  suggests  that  in 
her  haste  it  had  fallen  and  helped  to  throw  her  forward. 
The  cause  of  her  alarm  is  obvious.  It  was  the  violent 
contention  of  the  two  deities.  Her  sisters  and  the  boy 
Erichthonios  share  her  excitement,  especially  the  sister 
nearest  the  centre,  who  in  Carrey’s  drawing  corresponds 
singularly  with  the  so-called  Iris,  G,  of  the  east  pediment, 
both  in  the  slightness  of  her  figure  and  in  her  action  of  turn- 
ing away  from  the  centre.  When  we  see  on  the  east  frieze  a 
mortal  standing  with  his  back  deliberately  turned  towards 
deities  apparently  close  beside  him,  we  know  that  he  is 
unconscious  of  their  presence,  and  similarly  we  may  assume 
that  this  daughter  of  Cecrops  was  conscious  only  of  some 
mysterious  sound  or  sight.  These  daughters  of  Cecrops 
recall  a passage  of  Euripides  (/on,  1163),  where  he  mentions 
a curtain  at  Delphi — the  gift  of  an  Athenian— on  which  was 
embroidered  Cecrops  and  his  daughters,  he  ending  in  the 
coils  of  a serpent,  the  whole  scene  apparently  having  been 
much  the  same  as  on  a vase  in  the  British  Museum.1  It 
was  a subject  intimately  associated  with  the  rocks  of  the 
Acropolis. 

Between  this  family  group  of  Cecrops  and  the  reclining 
figure  in  the  angle,  A,  is  a gap  in  the  composition,  but  there 
is  no  proof  of  any  figure  ever  having  been  there.  Besides, 
there  is  a corresponding  gap  in  the  right  wing,  equally  with 
no  trace  of  any  figure.  In  our  judgment  these  two  gaps  are 
an  essential  part  of  the  composition.  So  far  as  the  left  wing 

1 E 788,  a vase  in  the  form  of  a in  a serpent,  his  three  daughters,  and 
sphinx  surmounted  by  a cup,  on  which  the  boy  Erichthonios  {Hellenic  Journal, 
the  design  is  painted,  Cecrops  ending  viii.  p.  i,  pi.  73). 


22 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 


is  concerned,  we  accept  this  gap  as  meant  to  separate  the 
legendary  family  of  Cecrops  from  A,  the  personification  of 
the  river  Ilissos  (or  Cephisos)  reclining  in  the  angle;  and  if  we 
could  convince  ourselves  that  the  group  of  women  and  boys, 
P — U,  in  the  right  wing  represent  the  family  of  Erechtheus, 
as  Professor  Furtwaengler  has  proposed,  we  would  be 
content  so  far.  The  two  remaining  figures  in  the  right 
angle,  V — W,  would  then  be,  from  our  point  of  view,  local 
personifications,  possibly  the  Cephisos  (or  Ilissos)  and  the 
fountain  Callirrhoe,  as  they  have  so  often  been  called.  There 
would  thus  be  three  orders  of  beings  in  the  pediment — deities 
in  the  centre,  legendary  beings  next  them,  and  personifi- 
cations in  the  immediate  angles.  In  any  case  we  insist  on 
this  artistic  division  of  groups  in  the  pediment. 

From  the  family  of  Cecrops  we  now  turn  more  particularly 
to  the  supposed  family  of  Erechtheus  in  the  right  wing.  In 
Carrey’s  drawing  and  partly  also  in  the  actual  remains  we 
recognise  there  a group  of  women  and  boys,  P — U.  One 
would  have  expected  even  more  excitement  among  them  since 
they  were  on  the  losing  side.  But  it  is  hardly  so.  The  woman 
O next  to  Poseidon’s  charioteer  is  seated  high  to  the  front. 
She  herself  does  not  appear  to  share  the  same  excitement  as 
the  corresponding  figure  F on  Athene’s  side,  but  the  boy 
on  her  right  side,  P,  has  rushed  impetuously  to  her,  his  right 
hand  clasping  her  knee,  and  his  mantle  stretched  between 
him  and  her.  On  her  left  was  another  boy,  R,  of  whom  we 
have  no  remains.  Next  comes  an  almost  nude  figure,  S, 
sitting  on  the  knees  of  a draped  woman,  T,  who  appears  to 
be  seated  low  on  the  ground,  and  in  the  act  of  raising  her 
knees  as  if  in  some  astonishment.  Lastly,  a woman,  U, 


ANGLE  GROUPS 


23 


seated,  moving  uneasily,  to  the  front.  In  Carrey’s  drawing 
she  appears  to  be  like  the  corresponding  figure  D in  the  left 
wing,  but  in  both  cases  that  appearance  of  moving  uneasily 
may  be  due  solely  to  the  point  of  view  at  which  Carrey  made 
his  drawing. 

We  have  thus  in  the  two  angles  two  groups  of  women  and 
children  whom  we  are  tempted  to  suppose  sitting  in  the  sun 
at  the  moment  of  the  divine  contest  in  a garden  beside  the 
sanctuary  of  Athene  and  Hephaestos,  where  Plato  imagines 
the  ruling  families  to  have  dwelt  in  the  legendary  age.1  That 
would  be  on  the  Acropolis ; but  in  his  picture  the  Acropolis 
of  those  days  extended  to  Mount  Lycabettos  on  the  one  hand 
and  to  the  Pnyx  on  the  other.  In  any  case  the  beings  who 
are  first  surprised  by  the  divine  contest  are  women  and 
children.  And  of  these  the  group  on  the  left  are  un- 
mistakably the  family  of  Cecrops.  Of  them  we  need  say  no 
more.  But  the  other  group  presents  difficulties.  In  one 
way  or  another  they  must  be  associated  with  Poseidon. 
They  are  on  his  side,  and  above  all  there  is  the  sea-monster 
under  the  feet  of  his  charioteer.  In  Carrey’s  drawing  the 
tail  of  that  monster  seems  to  have  stretched  behind  the  feet 
of  the  next  seated  figure,  Q,  and  in  the  marble  in  the  British 
Museum  there  is  a joint  behind  her  feet  which  shows  that 
something,  sculptured  separately  from  her,  had  passed  along 
there  ( PI.  V. ).  If  that  was  the  tail  of  the  sea-monster,  as  it  ought 
to  be,  we  could  then  easily  understand  the  joint  in  the  marble. 
Under  her  feet  Carrey  has  drawn  what  may  fairly  be 
regarded  as  marine  objects  of  some  kind.  On  her  left  side 
he  draws  another  young  boy,  R,  also  standing  high,  possibly 

1 Critias , 6. 


24 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 


on  the  rock  on  which  she  is  seated.  Next  we  have  a figure 
almost  entirely  nude,  S,  seated  on  the  knees  of  a draped 
figure,  T.  To  regard  this  nude  figure,  S,  as  a third  boy  is 
to  ignore  Carrey’s  obvious  intention  in  drawing  it  as  a 
woman.  Woman  or  not,  being  on  the  side  of  Poseidon  she 
must  be  explained  in  some  relation  to  the  sea.  If  a woman, 
and  intended  in  this  connection,  we  have  no  difficulty  in 
finding  analogies  for  her  among  sea-nymphs.  For  that 
purpose  we  give  (PI.  IV.,  Fig.  2)  a group  of  two  nymphs  on  a 
bronze  relief  in  the  British  Musem.1  They  are  seated  on  a sea- 
monster,  and  are  surprised,  the  head  of  Poseidon  rising  out 
of  the  sea.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  the  nude  figure, 
S,  has  more  often  than  not  been  regarded  as  the  sea-born 
Aphrodite.  In  our  judgment  this  whole  family  group  in  the 
pediments  may  reasonably  be  taken  as  nymphs  or  such-like 
with  their  children,  on  the  coast  of  Attica.  Their  individual 
names  is  a matter  of  indifference  from  an  artistic  point  of 
view.  We  should  add  here  that  the  body  of  the  boy  P was 
identified  and  put  in  its  proper  place  some  years  ago,  having 
been  previously  considered  to  be  the  body  of  a Lapith  in  one 
of  the  south  metopes ; that  the  drapery  of  the  figure  Q 
is  very  beautifully  sculptured ; and  that  we  possess  in  the 
Museum  a large  draped  fragment  which  may  be  one  of  the 
thighs  of  T,  also  very  finely  sculptured  (PI.  IV.,  Fig.  1). 

We  now  return  to  the  two  extreme  angles  of  the  pedi- 
ment, having  already  expressed  an  opinion  that  the  reclining 
figure  in  the  left,  A,  is  a river-god,  either  the  Ilissos  or 
Cephisos,  and  that  the  reclining  woman  in  the  right,  W, 
may  be  the  fountain  Callirrhoe,  the  male  figure  next  her, 

1 Catalogue  of  Bronzes , No.  973  ; Arch.  Zeit 1884,  pi.  2,  fig.  2. 


PL  . 


PARTS  OF  WEST  PEDIMENT. 


ANGLE  GROUPS 


25 


V,  the  river-god  Cephisos  or  Ilissos.  We  do  not  propose 
to  discuss  these  names  further,  but  would  rather  insist  on 
a due  consideration  of  the  place  of  the  angle  figures  in 
the  composition  as  a whole.  To  begin  with,  they  are 
separated,  as  already  said,  by  a gap  from  the  family 
group  next  them.  If  the  figures  in  the  angles  belong  to 
a different  order  of  beings,  then  we  can  understand  these 
gaps  and  can  feel  the  artistic  significance  of  them,  and  at 
the  same  time  appreciate  at  their  proper  worth  all  attempts 
to  fill  in  these  gaps  with  legendary  heroes,  and  so  extend 
the  family  group  continuously  right  into  each  angle,  as 
Professor  Furtwaengler  wishes.1  In  his  view  the  re- 
clining figure,  A,  would  be  a local  hero  Buziges,  whom 
we  hardly  know  by  name  ; and  Cecrops,  instead  of  being 
conspicuous  at  the  head  of  his  family,  would  only  be 
one  hero  among  others.  We  prefer  the  familiar  name 
of  the  Ilissos  for  the  angle  figure,  A,  not  only  because 
he  would  thus  be  a being  of  a different  order — that  is  to 
say,  a personification  of  a river — but  also  because  he  would 
thus  represent  the  locality,  as  do  the  river-gods  in  the 
angles  of  the  east  pediment  of  Olympia.  We  lay  stress 
on  the  parallel  instance  of  Olympia  (i)  because  of  the 
artistic  resemblance  between  the  river-gods  there  and  the 
Ilissos ; (2)  because  of  the  express  statement  of  Pausanias, 
which  no  one  would  doubt  in  this  case  unless  he  had 
another  axe  to  grind ; and  (3)  because  of  what  we  know 
concerning  the  habit  of  thought  of  Pheidias  in  indicating 
the  localities  of  his  great  compositions.  In  late  Greek  and 
Roman  art  the  presence  of  river-gods  at  the  extremities 


Meisterwerke,  p.  241. 


26 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 


of  a composition  is  employed  to  localise  a scene,  and 
nothing  is  more  probable  than  that  Pheidias  had  been 
one  of  the  first  to  introduce  this  principle.  The  personifi- 
cations of  sun  and  moon  at  each  extremity  of  his  sculp- 
tured base  of  the  Zeus  at  Olympia  is  a proof  of  this  habit 
of  mind  on  his  part,  to  say  nothing  of  his  sun  and  moon 
at  each  end  of  the  east  pediment  of  the  Parthenon  itself, 
serving  as  boundaries  of  the  scene. 

The  Ilissos  has  no  corresponding  figure  in  the  right  angle, 
as  the  analogy  of  the  two  river-gods  at  Olympia  might  lead 
us  to  expect.  In  the  interval  there  had  been  an  artistic 
advance  which  had  discarded  the  older  feeling  of  a necessary 
balance  in  each  angle.  And  similarly  in  the  east  pediment 
of  the  Parthenon  we  shall  see  that  the  so-called  Theseus  in 
one  angle  has  no  figure  strictly  balancing  him  in  the  other. 
That  question  we  must  leave  for  the  moment.  But  con- 
sidering that  the  Ilissos  is  the  only  figure  of  the  whole 
west  pediment  which  has  been  fairly  well  preserved,  we 
may  now  examine  him  more  closely  from  an  artistic  point  of 
view  (PI.  V.).  We  do  not  expect  him  to  have  an  urn  by  his 
side,  with  water  flowing  from  it,  and  a branch  in  one  hand, 
as  in  late  Greek  and  Roman  art ; we  may  fairly  be  content 
if  his  nude  form  is  resplendent  with  light,  as  becomes  the 
representative  of  a river,  on  which  the  play  of  light  is 
always  one  of  its  most  characteristic  features.  It  is  so. 
There  is  not  certainly  so  much  undulation  in  his  limbs  as 
in  the  river-gods  of  Olympia,  but  there  is  some.  His 
mantle,  which  stretches  behind  him,  is  characterised  by  long 
lines  and  folds  which  may  be  described  as  wet.  It  spreads 
itself  on  the  rock  behind  his  left  hand  in  a thin  sheet  of 


THE  RIVER  GODS 


27 


flat  folds,  which,  though  only  sketched  in,  or  because  of 
that,  conveys  the  idea  of  water  gliding  over  a smooth 
rock  in  the  bed  of  a stream.  It  may  be  argued  that  this 
treatment  of  the  drapery  is  mere  negligence ; if  so,  it  is 
negligence  in  the  right  place  for  once.  He  is  excited  by 
the  contest  of  the  two  deities,  and  raises  himself  in  his 
channel,  pulling  back  his  left  foot  and  raising  his  right 
knee ; his  right  hand  has  caught  hold  of  an  end  of  his 
mantle,  dragging  it  forward,  an  action  always  significant 
of  surprise  in  Greek  art.  The  somewhat  violent  raising 
of  himself  has  necessarily  thrown  the  more  mobile  parts 
of  the  body  into  a confusion  which  might  easily  have 
been  indicated  by  a sculptor  more  expressively  than  here, 
but  never  with  a finer  conception  and  with  just  that  degree 
of  truth  which  is  consistent  with  a lofty  ideal.  The  massive 
bones  of  the  chest  and  the  ribs  remain  unchangeable,  of 
course,  however  the  body  may  turn.  The  task  was  to 
reconcile  with  them  the  easily  changing  forms  of  the 
abdomen.  For  ourselves,  the  way  in  which  this  has  been 
done  commands  unaltering  admiration. 

At  Athens  there  remain  in  the  right  angle  of  this  pedi- 
ment two  torsos,  V,  W.  The  former  is  a male  figure  in  the 
act  of  rising  suddenly  as  in  alarm.  For  the  moment  he  still 
rests  on  his  right  knee,  but  the  right  foot  is  entangled  in  a 
mantle,  in  a manner  which  suggests  haste.  Probably  the 
left  knee  had  been  raised,  the  foot  on  the  ground.  His 
bodily  forms  are  very  simple,  but  very  grand.  That  he 
represents  the  river  Cephisos  we  are  content  to  believe. 
The  other  figure,  W,  is  a woman,  thickly  draped,  reclining 
at  full  length,  and  grasping  with  her  right  hand  the  rock 


28 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT 


beneath  her.  Enough  remains  to  show  that  she  had  been 
in  the  act  of  turning  towards  the  centre  of  the  pediment 
in  alarm.  Her  drapery  at  the  back  is  finely  if  simply  ren- 
dered. We  are  willing  to  accept  her  as  the  local  fountain, 
Callirrhoe. 

Thus  the  great  shock  of  the  deities  in  the  centre  vibrates 
through  every  figure  to  the  remote  angles.  The  unity  of 
the  whole  pediment  must  have  been  singularly  impressive  in 
its  original  state.  With  patience  we  can  learn  this  much 
from  Carrey’s  drawing  and  the  remains.  The  gods  with  their 
chariots  were  invisible,  but  the  shock  of  their  contention 
reached  by  some  divine  sound  or  sight  the  beings  in  Attica 
who  were  at  the  moment  most  interested  in  the  result. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 

[Plates  VI. -IX.] 

IN  the  east  pediment  we  have  no  drawings  of  Carrey  to 
show  us  what  the  great  central  group,  now  missing, 
had  been  like.  All  we  possess  is  the  groups  from  the  two 
angles,  much  as  Carrey  saw  them  (PI.  VI.).  But  we  are  told 
by  Pausanias  in  the  briefest  possible  words  that  the  whole  of 
the  sculptures  of  this  pediment  were  concerned  with  the 
birth  of  Athene.  With  this  authentic  information  we  see 
at  once  that  what  is  now  a great  void  in  the  centre  had  been 
occupied  originally  by  the  deities  present  at  and  startled  by 
the  birth  of  the  goddess  from  the  head  of  her  father  Zeus. 
We  read  in  the  Homeric  Hymn  to  Athene  that  Olympos,  the 
abode  of  the  gods,  trembled  at  the  sight  of  her,  the  earth 
moaned  heavily,  the  sea  was  agitated,  raising  its  purple 
waves  and  tossing  its  brine  ; Helios,  the  sun-god,  stayed  his 
horses  what  time  Athene  was  doffing  her  immortal  armour 
to  the  joy  of  her  father  Zeus.  Pindar  ( Olymp . vii.)  says  : 
“ Springing  from  the  head  of  her  father,  she  shouted  an 
exceeding  great  cry,  and  Olympos  and  mother  earth 
shuddered  at  her.”  Later  on  he  says  that  the  sun-god  had 
commanded  to  watch  her  advent  and  to  offer  her  sacrifice. 


29 


3° 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


With  the  aid  of  these  poets  and  with  the  sober  statement 
of  Pausanias  we  can  imagine  the  present  great  void  in  the 
centre  filled  by  deities,  all  agitated  except  Zeus  himself.  On 
the  strength  of  certain  Greek  vases  and  the  reliefs  on  a 
marble  well-mouth  (puteal)  in  Madrid  (PI.  IX.  Fig.  i),  we 
may  even  go  a step  further  and  imagine  Zeus  seated  in  the 
very  centre  or  near  it,  facing  the  right,  Hephaestos  imme- 
diately behind  him,  rushing  off  in  haste  after  having  cloven  the 
head  of  Zeus,  and  Athene  in  front  of  her  father,  full  armed 
and  excited.  Beyond  these  limits  we  cannot  go,  except  in 
mere  speculation.  Yet  we  know  in  general  terms  that  the 
whole  central  group  of  deities,  now  lost,  had  been  stirred  into 
action  by  a sudden  event ; and  if  anything  is  needed  to 
confirm  this  view,  it  is  supplied  by  the  existing  groups  of  the 
two  angles,  where  each  figure  is  seen  to  be  moved  by  some 
action  in  the  centre,  the  sound  of  which  is  reaching  them  one 
after  the  other,  according  to  distance.  We  are  on  sure  ground 
thus  far,  and  must  now  meet  the  next  question  : Did  the 
figures  in  the  two  angles  belong  to  the  conclave  of  deities 
present  at  the  birth  of  Athene?  In  other  words:  Did  the 
whole  composition  of  the  east  pediment  represent  a united 
homogeneous  body?  If  so,  why  are  those  in  the  angles  so 
unprepared  for  what  is  happening  in  their  midst  ? As  we 
examine  them  one  by  one  we  shall  see  how  unprepared  they 
are,  and  how  much  in  this  respect  they  resemble  the  angle 
groups  of  the  west  pediment.  Meantime  we  have  no  hesitation 
in  accepting  for  the  east  pediment  the  same  principle  of  com- 
position which  we  have  recognised  in  the  west ; that  is  to  say, 
a great  central  group  of  deities  who  were  visible  only  to  the 
inner  eye,  and  two  angle  groups  of  secondary  beings,  whom 


SUBJECT  AND  COMPOSITION  31 

for  the  moment  we  may  call  merely  interested  spectators.  The 
name  of  each  figure  is  indifferent  compared  with  the  artistic 
principle  which  dominates  the  whole  composition,  and  it  is 
precisely  for  this  reason  that  we  have  taken  first  the  west 
pediment,  which  we  could  survey  as  a whole  in  Carrey’s 
drawing.  In  the  west  pediment  we  have  seen  that  the  great 
central  group  of  deities  and  chariots  is  complete  in  itself. 
The  action  of  that  group  is  not  shared  by  the  figures  in  the 
wings,  but  only  passes  over  to  them  in  its  consequences. 
We  expect  the  same  principle  of  composition  in  the  east 
pediment,  and  as  a matter  of  fact  the  prevailing  opinion  of 
late  years  has  been  distinctly  in  that  direction. 

The  point  we  desire  to  press  most  is  this  : If  the  deities  in 
the  west  pediment  were  by  their  nature  invisibly  present  in 
the  atmosphere  of  the  Acropolis  when  the  olive  tree  and  the 
brackish  spring  were  made  to  appear,  and  if  the  deities  on 
the  frieze  waiting  the  rich  sacrifices  to  be  offered  them  are 
seated  invisibly  on  the  Acropolis  or  inside  a temple,  there  is 
at  least  a strong  presumption  that  the  same  principle  had 
applied  to  the  central  deities  of  the  east  pediment.  Assume, 
as  is  usual,  that  they  were  in  Olympos  when  Athene  sprang 
into  being ; we  then  lose  the  unity  of  place,  and  have  either 
to  invent  means  of  communicating  the  news  to  beings  on 
the  earth,  or,  following  the  Homeric  Hymn  to  Athene, 
assume  that  the  angle  groups  represent  earth  and  sea 
violently  agitated  by  the  event.  But  the  sea  from  which 
Helios  rises  in  the  left  angle  is  perfectly  calm,  with  only 
a ripple  on  its  surface  as  at  a peaceful  dawn.  There  is  no 
agitation  in  the  extreme  angles.  And  what  would  have  been 
the  significance  of  the  birth  of  the  goddess  for  the  Athenians 


32 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


if  it  had  been  an  event  which  concerned  the  whole  world 
and  not  them  by  overwhelming  preference  ? Let  us  call  the 
invisible  sphere  where  she  was  born  Olympos,  but  define  it 
as  for  the  moment  just  over  Athens.  If  the  gods  went  to 
Ethiopia  for  a feast  they  might  equally  come  to  Athens,  so 
the  Athenians  may  well  have  thought,  for  the  birth  of  their 
protecting  goddess. 

The  view  we  here  propose  is  in  fact  only  an  expansion  of 
the  invisible  Zeus  in  the  east  and  the  invisible  Apollo  in  the 
west  pediment  of  Olympia,  to  which  we  may  add  the  invisible 
Athene  of  the  Aegina  pediments.  It  is  a development  of  the 
Homeric  idea  of  shrouding  a deity  in  mist,  or  otherwise  making 
him  or  her  unperceived  by  mortals,  though  near  to  them.  We 
see  the  same  development  in  the  frieze  of  the  Theseum  and  in 
the  archaic  frieze  of  the  Treasury  of  Cnidos  at  Delphi.  In 
mankind  everywhere  there  is  an  inner  vision  which  no  true 
artist  can  ignore.  When  the  sculptor  sought  to  meet  the 
demands  of  this  inner  eye  by  a conventional  method,  as  in 
these  instances  and  on  the  Parthenon,  we  may  rest  assured 
that  he  was  well  understood  by  his  own  generation. 

The  sculptor  has  set  as  boundaries  of  the  scene  the  sun 
rising  from  the  sea  in  the  left  angle  and  the  moon  de- 
scending behind  the  hills  in  the  right  (PI.  IX.).  The  sun  and 
the  moon  are  doubtless  cosmic  powers  common  to  mankind. 
Yet  every  little  town  or  village  knows  them  only  as  they 
appear  to  it.  An  Athenian  standing  at  dawn  before  the 
east  front  of  the  Parthenon  and  looking  towards  the  pedi- 
ment might  see  the  sun  rising  from  the  sea  on  his  left  and 
the  moon  passing  on  his  right  away  over  the  hills.  He  would 
know  no  other  sun  and  moon  but  his  own.  With  equal  justice 


SUNRISE  AT  ATHENS 


33 


to  the  natural  phenomena  the  sculptor  could  have  imagined 
himself  facing  in  the  opposite  direction.  The  sun  would 
then  have  been  on  his  right  hand  and  the  moon  on  his 
left,  as  on  a beautiful  vase  in  the  British  Museum  about 
contemporary  with  the  Parthenon  (E  466).  He  would  then 
have  placed  his  Helios  in  the  right  angle  of  the  pediment 
and  his  Selene  in  the  left.  The  effect,  however,  would  have 
been  incongruous,  and  bearing  these  things  in  mind,  we  think 
that  the  sculptor  has  distinctly  meant  to  indicate  sunrise  at 
Athens.  But  what  has  sunrise  to  do  with  Olympos  ? And 
what  interest  could  the  Athenians  be  expected  to  take  in  any 
sun  and  moon  but  their  own  ? 

It  is  true  that  the  Greeks  generally  and  Pheidias  in  par- 
ticular regarded  the  east  as  on  their  left  hand.  On  the 
base  of  his  statue  of  Zeus  at  Olympia,  representing  the 
birth  of  Aphrodite,  the  sun  was  seen  rising  on  the  extreme 
left,  the  moon  retiring  on  the  right  (Pausanias,  v.  11,  3),  and 
on  the  base  of  his  Athene  in  the  Parthenon  itself  the  same 
phenomenon  occurs,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  Lenormant 
copy  of  the  statue  (PI.  XIV.,  Fig.  3).  But  granting  that  this 
was  a mere  habit  on  his  part,  we  must  still  regard  it  as  a 
happy  coincidence  that  on  the  Parthenon  the  sun  rises  exactly 
as  in  the  sky  at  Athens. 

In  ancient  times  the  sun  stood  still  at  scenes  of  carnage, 
as  on  Mount  Gibeon,  or  of  horror,  as  at  the  feast  of  Thyestes. 
At  the  birth  of  Athene  he  stayed  his  horses,  we  are  told. 
From  the  sculpture  (A  on  PI.  IX.,  Fig.  2)  we  can  see  that  he 
is  pulling  them  in.  His  outstretched  right  arm  is  full  of 
strength  and  action,  forcing  round  to  the  front  the  two 
nearer  horses’  heads  B,  C.  The  two  farther  heads  remain 

F 


34 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


in  the  pediment,1  as  may  be  seen  in  our  view  of  the  east 
front  (PI.  I.)  He  has  a quadriga,  whereas  the  two 

deities  in  the  west  pediment  have  only  bigae.  But  that 
distinction,  we  may  well  imagine,  was  purely  artistic.  Two 
quadrigae  in  the  west  pediment  would  necessarily  have 
presented  more  complicated  masses  on  each  side  of  the 
two  protagonist  deities  in  the  centre,  and  for  that  reason 
would  have  been  less  effective  in  accentuating  the  pro- 
minence of  the  deities.  In  the  angle  of  the  east  pediment, 
where  only  the  heads  of  the  horses  were  visible,  the  presence 
of  four  was  more  a gain  than  otherwise.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  four  horses  of  Selene  in  the  rieht  anode.  We 
possess  only  one  of  them  (O  on  PI.  IX.,  Fig.  2).  The  others, 
more  or  less  disfigured,  remain  in  their  original  place,  the 
fourth  being  only  sketched  in  on  the  back  of  the  pediment. 
In  certain  late  Roman  reliefs2  the  horses  of  Selene  appear 
plunging  downward,  their  heads  already  lost  beneath  the 
horizon,  their  bodies  still  visible.  It  is  otherwise  on  the 
Parthenon.  There  it  is  the  heads  of  the  horses  and  the 
upper  part  of  Selene  that  remain  in  view,  the  rest  being  out 
of  sight.  Yet  the  head  of  the  nearest  horse,  O,  is  cut  away 
at  the  back  to  let  it  overhang  the  cornice,  as  if  already 


1 A then.  M ittheilungen,  xvi.  pi.  3. 

2 For  example,  the  sarcophagus  in 
the  Capitoline  Museum  representing 
Prometheus  making  man.  But  more 
to  our  purpose  is  a Mithraic  relief,  on 
which  we  see  between  the  rising  sun 
on  the  left  and  the  waning  moon  on 
the  right  a group  of  deities  in  two 
rows.  In  the  front  row  Zeus  sits  in 
the  centre.  On  his  right  stand  Hera, 


Athene,  Aphrodite ; on  his  left  stand 
Apollo,  Ares,  Heracles.  In  the  back 
row,  and  visible  only  as  far  as  the 
busts,  are,  behind  Zeus,  Victory  holding 
a palm  branch  ; on  her  right,  Artemis, 
Hades,  and  Persephone ; on  her  left, 
Poseidon.  This  relief  was  found  in 
1861,  at  Kastell  Osterburken,  and  is 
published  in  the  Obergermanisch.  Rhae- 
tisch.  Limes , pt.  ii.  p.  23,  pi.  2. 


♦ 


PL  VII 


EAST  PEDIMENT. 


THESEUS 


35 


partially  below  the  horizon.  Surely  no  horse’s  head  could 
be  more  beautiful.  Ordinarily  the  large  flat  cheek-bones  of 
a horse — irresponsive  to  any  muscular  movement — seem 
ungainly.  But  in  an  animal  of  noble  breed  the  mobile 
mouth,  the  fiery  nostrils,  the  prominent  eye  and  the  alert 
ears  at  once  rivet  our  attention.  The  dull  expanse  of  cheek- 
bone then  resolves  itself  into  an  agreeable  contrast,  just 
because  of  its  structural  and  immobile  form.  Selene  herself 
is  a mere  fragment  now  in  Athens.  She  had  worn  a scarf, 
which  passed  round  the  back  of  the  shoulders  and  had  fallen 
over  her  upper  arms.  Both  arms  had  been  stretched  forward 
energetically,  possibly  in  the  act  of  pulling  back  her  horses, 
like  Helios,  in  astonishment. 

As  we  proceed  in  examining  one  by  one  the  sculptures 
of  the  pediment,  we  come  next  to  a figure  D,  which  is 
at  once  the  Grandest  of  them  all  in  an  artistic  sense  and 

o 

a source  of  perplexity  as  to  who  he  is.  Long  ago  he  was 
called  Cephalos,  and  now  again  that  name  is  in  favour. 
He  has  been  called  also  Dionysos,  but  is  best  known  as 
Theseus.  Whatever  his  name,  he  is  reclining  on  a rock 
over  which  he  has  thrown  both  a lion’s  skin  and  a mantle. 
That  he  had  worn  a huntsman’s  boots  is  inferred  from  the 
drill-hole  in  the  marble  in  front  of  his  left  ankle.  But 
how  is  his  attitude  to  be  described  ? The  cramped  action  of 
his  knees  is  very  peculiar.  It  seems  to  indicate  awakening 
from  slumber  at  sunrise.  The  slight  bending  forward 
of  the  head  and  body,  the  partial  turning  round  towards 
the  front,  are  equally  consistent  with  that  action.  We  can 
imagine  the  right  hand  raised  towards  the  head  in  a 
familiar  act  of  awakening.  His  left  hand  may  have  held 


36 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


two  sloping  spears,  like  the  Cephalos  on  our  vase  (E  466), 
which  represents  the  sun  and  moon  at  dawn  in  Attica.  His 
whole  figure  is  sunlit,  as  if  the  marble  Helios  were  shining 
full  upon  it.  When,  as  sometimes  happens,  the  sun  strikes 
full  on  this  figure,  the  effect  is  almost  magical ; but  even  in 
diffused  light  he  always  appears  as  if  the  sun’s  rays  were 
slanting  upwards  along  his  body  from  the  angle.  The  face 
is  too  much  damaged  to  convey  any  just  idea  of  its  original 
expression.  All  we  can  assert  is  that  the  forehead  is  very 
beautifully  modelled  and  the  eyebrows  sharply  defined,  as 
in  metal  rather  than  in  marble.  The  hair  has  been  only 
roughly  blocked  out  and  is  now  much  worn,  but  at  the  back 
there  is  a suggestion  that  it  had  been  braided  in  two  plaits 
twined  round  the  head,  as  we  see  in  the  Choiseul-Gouffier 
Apollo  and  other  slightly  archaic  statues. 

No  words  of  ours  could  describe  the  beauty  of  this  figure, 
with  its  fearless  truth  to  nature  not  only  in  the  bodily  forms, 
but  also  in  that  sense  of  energising  vitality  which  Nature 
herself  so  strangely  communicates  to  us  in  her  operations. 
The  attitude  is  such  that  the  nearer  side  of  the  figure  is 
strained  just  enough  to  bring  into  play  every  capacity  of  the 
human  form,  without  a touch  of  exaggeration,  but  only  with 
the  infinite  modulation  of  a living  being  of  the  finest  type. 
It  was  in  this  aspect  that  the  figure  was  meant  to  be  seen, 
and  it  is  there  that  the  sculptor  has  concentrated  his  amazing 
gift  of  poetic  insight  and  incomparable  skill.  At  the  same 
time,  there  are  other  points  in  this  statue  which  we  need  not 
be  deterred  from  examining.  For  instance,  taking  the  middle 
line  of  the  body  to  start  from,  we  observe  that  the  farther  half 
is  not  only  narrower  than  the  nearer  half,  but  is  rendered 


THESEUS 


37 


in  a quite  general  manner — not  much  more  carefully,  in  fact, 
than  the  back  of  the  figure,  and  in  striking  contrast  with 
the  marvellous  beauty  of  the  nearer  side.  Beautiful  as  is 
the  structure  of  the  bones  of  the  right  knee,  which  is  farther 
away,  it  cannot  compare  with  the  charms  of  precise  de- 
lineation in  the  bones  of  the  left  knee.  Or  if  we  measure 
from  the  collar-bone  to  an  extreme  point  on  each  shoulder, 
we  find  a difference  considerably  greater  than  is  possible 
in  nature.  It  has  been  said,  “The  soul  of  Greece  is  her 
veracity.”  No  one  disputes  that,  but  the  position  in  which 
a statue  was  intended  to  be  seen  must  have  always  qualified 
the  degree  of  truth  which  it  was  advisable  to  bestow  in 
the  interests  of  the  spectator.  A figure  which  can  only 
present  one  side  to  the  spectator,  and  must  be  seen  from 
below,  was  precisely  in  that  case.  Much  has  been  said 
and  written  in  praise  of  the  backs  of  these  pediment  statues 
— justly  enough  in  one  sense,  but  very  unjustly  in  com- 
parison with  the  fronts.  The  back  of  this  figure  is  certainly 
a grand  conception.  The  immense  strength  of  his  shoulder 
bones  is  shown  by  the  great  ridge  of  flesh  which  has  been 
driven  up  by  the  pulling  back  of  his  left  arm.  From  this  the 
eye  travels  downwards  to  the  finer  articulation  of  the  small 
of  the  back.  Everywhere  we  see  the  truth  of  nature 
applied  to  a being  of  heroic  mould.  Yet  the  details  are  not 
worked  out  with  anything  like  the  finish  of  the  left  side  of 
the  statue. 

Before  leaving  this  figure — the  familiar  Theseus — we  must 
state  our  present  opinion  that  he  is  more  likely  to  be  Cephalos, 
the  ideal  Attic  huntsman,  beloved  of  Eos,  awakening  from 
his  slumber  on  Mount  Hymettos  when  it  is  flushed  with 


3« 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


the  rosy  light  of  dawn,  as  we  have  seen  it,  and  when  a 
murmur  of  the  birth  of  Athene  had  just  reached  him, 
still  in  semi-consciousness. 

The  figures  next  him,  E,  F,  G,  form  a group  of  three 
at  present.  The  whole  centre  of  the  pediment  being  lost, 
we  cannot  assert  positively  that  these  three  figures  were 
originally  a detached  group  ; but  we  can  surmise  thus  much 
from  the  west  pediment,  where  we  had  a corresponding  triad 
in  the  daughters  of  Cecrops,  the  more  so  since  one  of 
the  daughters  of  Cecrops,  nearest  the  centre,  answers  in 
her  movement  to  the  so-called  Iris,  G,  in  the  group  now 
in  question.  These  two  figures  serve  in  each  pediment  to 
separate  the  great  central  group  from  the  angles.  For  this 
reason  we  may  fairly  claim  the  three  women,  E,  F,  G,  as 
having  been  a triad  in  the  original  composition. 

The  two  seated  women,  E,  F,  have  been  identified  as 
the  goddesses  Demeter  and  Persephone,  on  the  assumption 
that  the  whole  scene  of  the  birth  of  Athene  had  been 
enacted  in  Olympos,  or  as  the  Seasons  (Horae),  who  in  the 
Iliad  (v.  749)  keep  watch  at  the  gates  of  heaven,  roll 
away  the  closed  doors  of  cloud,  and  shut  them  again. 
Pausanias  (v.  11,  7)  was  thinking  of  that  when  describing 
the  throne  of  Zeus  at  Olympia : “ On  the  highest  part 
of  the  throne  above  the  head  of  the  statue  Pheidias  placed 
the  Graces  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Seasons  on  the  other, 
three  of  each.”  Then  he  quotes  from  Homer  to  the  effect 
that  the  Horae  or  Seasons  were  like  “guardians  of  a king’s 
hall.”  This  same  writer  (ix.  35,  1),  speaking  of  the  Horae 
in  Attica,  says  that  one  of  them,  Thallo,  was  there  honoured 
jointly  with  Pandrosos,  one  of  the  three  daughters  of 


THE  ATTIC  HORAE 


39 


Cecrops.  The  three  Attic  Horae  were  Thallo,  Auxo,  and 
Carpo.  We  propose  to  identify  them  with  the  figures 
E,  F,  G.  The  Horae  were  present  at  the  birth  of  Aphro- 
dite also,  as  she  rose  from  the  sea.  So  we  are  told  in 
the  Homeric  Hymn  (v.  5),  and  so  we  see  them  sculptured 
on  the  Ludovisi  throne.1  But  while  on  this  throne  there 
was  an  artistic  necessity  for  the  presence  of  only  two 
Horae,  the  only  possible  reason  in  the  Parthenon  pediment 
for  separating  the  third  figure  (G)  from  the  two  others  is 
the  difference  of  her  attitude  and  action.  That,  however, 
is  no  greater  than  the  difference  between  the  third  daughter 
of  Cecrops  and  her  two  sisters  in  the  west  pediment.  We 
therefore  adhere  to  the  triad  of  Horae.  They  were  pecu- 
liarly Attic  personifications,  and  as  guardians  of  the  sky 
were  appropriately  placed  in  the  left  wing  near  Helios  and 
Cephalos.  Here  we  should  add  that  the  backs  of  these  two 
figures  are  rendered  with  unusual  care,  and  are  in  fact  very 
beautiful. 

The  third  Hora,  G,  was  at  one  time  called  Iris  because 
of  her  rapid  motion  as  of  one  running  in  from  a distance 
with  news  to  the  two  seated  figures,  E,  F ; but  her  action 
no  more  implies  distance  than  does  that  of  the  third 
daughter  of  Cecrops,  as  we  have  just  said.  It  is  merely 
the  action  of  sudden  alarm,  which  she,  being  a little  nearer 
the  centre  of  events,  has  felt  first.  The  hurried  step  she 
is  taking  may  be  almost  the  first,  as  it  obviously  is  the  last. 

1 Roem.  Mittheilungen , vii.  pi.  2,  were  present  at  births  in  ordinary 

p.  32 ; Brunn,  Bildwerke  des  Parthe-  life  may  be  seen  in  an  epigram  in 

non,  in  the  Berichtc  of  the  layer.  Akad.  the  A nth.  Gr.  App.  II.  637  (Didot), 

d.  Wissen.  1 874 ; and  F urtwaengler,  /xarpus  cwf  a>Stvwv  tli s as  r/xfos  rjyayov 

Meisterwerke , p.  248.  That  the  Horae  Tlpui. 


40 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


It  is  true  that  the  girlishness  of  her  form,  when  looked  at 
full  in  front  and  compared  with  the  two  seated  women,  may 
suggest  a doubt  as  to  the  sisterly  relation  of  all  three. 
But  there  was  the  space  of  the  pediment  to  be  considered, 
and  besides,  we  must  remember  that  it  was  the  left  side 
of  this  figure  which  came  most  into  view  when  the 
spectator  stood  midway  beneath  the  pediment,  looking  up. 
In  that  aspect  her  left  side  is  strikingly  bold  in  its  con- 
trasts of  nude  form  and  large,  simple  masses  of  drapery. 
She  has  sprung  to  her  feet,  seizing  her  mantle  with  both 
hands  in  astonishment ; that  was  a formula  among  Greek 
artists  of  the  time.  As  regards  the  two  seated  figures, 
the  extent  of  their  surprise  is  greater  than  is  usually 
supposed.  The  one,  E,  throws  out  her  right  knee  with 
a great  strain  on  her  dress,  which  brings  out  clearly 
the  form  of  the  leg.  Her  left  arm  is  not  resting  idly  on 
the  shoulder  of  F,  but  has  been  thrown  on  it  in  a 
hurried  as  well  as  affectionate  manner.  The  figure  F has 
swung  herself  round  and  raised  her  arms  energetically,  as 
if  in  terror.  We  cannot  say  now  how  far  the  action  of 
the  heads  of  these  two  figures  may  have  accentuated  this 
expression  of  movement ; but  we  must  add  this,  that  the 
thick  drapery  of  all  three  figures  must  have  played  an 
important  part  in  the  artistic  composition  of  the  pediment. 
The  striking  contrast  it  presents  to  the  brilliantly  nude 
Cephalos  on  the  left  must  have  been  balanced  by  another 
nude  figure  on  the  right  belonging  to  the  great  central 
group  of  deities. 

In  the  right  wing  of  the  pediment  we  approach  again  a 
group  of  three  draped  women.  Usually  it  is  assumed  that 


EAST  PEDIMENT. 


THE  FATES 


4i 


these  also  were  originally  a separate  triad,  though  in  fact  the 
absence  of  the  central  group  of  the  pediment  precludes 
absolute  certainty  on  this  point.  We  can,  however,  argue 
from  the  analogy  of  the  west  pediment,  and  in  that  light  we 
accept  these  three  figures,  K,  L,  M,  as  a triad.  No  triad  of 
women,  each  of  about  the  same  age  and  all  fairly  clad,  was 
better  known  than  the  Fates,  and  none  more  appropriately 
present  at  a birth.  On  the  Madrid  puteal  (PI.  IX.,  Fig.  1), 
which  represents  the  birth  of  Athene,  they  are  present  with 
their  shears  and  thread  in  their  hands.  It  is  true  they  are 
there  standing  in  a group  as  the  exigencies  of  a band  of 
relief  required.  But  they  are  there  all  the  same.  On  these 
grounds  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  three  figures  in  the 
pediment  have  become  popularly  known  as  the  Fates. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  learn  from  a fragment  of  Euripides 
(. Nauck , 623)  that  the  Fates  were  divine  beings  who  “sat 
nearest  to  the  throne  of  Zeus,”  and  obviously  on  an  occasion 
like  the  birth  of  Athene  they  would  have  been  intent  on  their 
natural  occupation,  not  surprised  and  startled  as  are  the  three 
women  in  the  remote  angle  of  the  pediment.  They  would  thus 
have  been  the  “Foolish  Fates,”  as  they  are  called  in  Mid- 
summer Night's  Dreavi.  Further,  the  Fates  had  no  special 
connection  with  Attica.  But  let  us  examine  the  group  as  it 
stands. 

At  first  sight,  and  from  a superficial  point  of  view  of  the 
pediment  as  a whole,  there  is  not  much  of  artistic  balance 
in  the  two  angle  groups.  We  recognise  that  the  two 
figures  K,  L on  the  right  respond  fairly  well  to  E,  F on 
the  left.  But  as  a response  to  the  nude  Cephalos  on  the 
left  we  have  a draped  woman,  M,  on  the  right.  Yet 

G 


42 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


beneath  this  superficial  aspect  we  cannot  deny  that  the 
reclining  figure,  M,  represents  the  same  idea  as  does  the 
Cephalos  ; that  is  to  say,  a person  in  the  act  of  awakening. 
We  have  thus  in  the  same  place  in  each  angle  a figure 
awakening  from  sleep,  the  superficial  difference  being  that 
one  is  a man,  the  other  a woman.  In  spirit  the  two  angles 
thus  respond  perfectly.  In  both  we  have  a scene  of  awaken- 
ing, appropriately  caused  in  the  first  instance  by  the  dawn, 
but  intensified  in  the  second  instance  by  the  coincident 
birth  of  Athene. 

The  third  figure,  M,  lying  with  the  feet  still  crossed 
one  over  the  other,  is  surely  still  more  asleep  than  awake. 
The  second,  L,  has  pulled  back  her  feet,  as  a woman 
must  do  in  rising  suddenly  from  a low  seat,  and  is  doing 
her  best  to  stir  up  her  sleeping  sister.  The  first,  K, 
has  swung  round  towards  the  centre,  her  left  arm  pressing 
hard  on  the  shoulder  of  L.1  All  three  have  been  closely 
grouped  like  sisters.  They  are  all  three  taken  by  surprise, 
nearly  as  much  so  as  the  three  daughters  of  Cecrops  in 
the  west  pediment.  It  is  the  surprise  of  beings  who,  till 
that  moment,  have  been  asleep  under  daily  conditions, 
and  in  their  native  place.  In  Olympos  nothing  of  the 
kind  was  possible.  We  must,  therefore,  regard  the  so-called 
Fates  as  local  Attic  beings,  or,  to  repeat  the  phrase  we  have 
already  used,  when  speaking  of  the  west  pediment,  “ inter- 
ested local  spectators.”  Accordingly  we  recognise  in  both 
wings  of  the  east  pediment — as  in  the  west — local  personages 

1 The  marble  head  belonging  to  to  one  or  other  of  the  figures  in  the 
Count  Laborde,  in  Paris,  has  some-  west  pediment.  The  nose  and  mouth 
times  been  thought  to  belong  to  K,  but  are  restored.  See  the  cast  in  the  Elgin 
more  frequently  perhaps  it  is  assigned  Room. 


COMPARISON  WITH  WEST  PEDIMENT 


43 


who  either  had  already  passed  into  legend  or  were  still  in 
the  state  of  personifications.  We  regret  that  Professor 
Furtwaengler,  having  accepted  the  local  Cephalos  and 
two  of  the  local  Attic  Horae  for  the  left  wing,  should  have 
fallen  back  on  the  Fates  for  the  right  wing,  instead  of  follow- 
ing up  the  principle  of  local  representation,  a principle  which 
in  the  west  pediment  he  has  pursued  to  its  extreme. 

The  east  and  the  west  pediments  of  the  Parthenon  were 
respectively  the  first  and  the  second  acts  of  the  drama  of 
Athene.  It  was  incumbent  that  certain  of  the  characters 
should  be  taken  over  from  the  one  act  to  the  other ; at  all 
events,  Athene  herself  and  Poseidon.  Poseidon  could  not  have 
been  absent  from  among-  the  gods  at  the  scene  of  her  birth  in 
the  east  pediment.  Nor  could  Hermes  have  failed  there; 
yet  we  find  him  also  again  in  the  west  pediment  accompanying 
the  chariot  of  Athene.  If  the  charioteer  of  Poseidon  in  the 
west  pediment  is  Amphitrite,  as  is  mostly  supposed,  she  also 
may  have  been  present  at  the  birth  of  Athene  in  the  east 
pediment  by  the  same  right  which  entitled  her  to  be  present 
at  the  birth  of  Aphrodite  alongside  of  Poseidon  on  the  base 
of  the  Zeus  at  Olympia  by  Pheidias.  For  all  we  know,  the 
goddess  also  who  accompanies  the  chariot  of  Poseidon  and 
she  who  drives  the  chariot  of  Athene  may  have  been  taken 
over  from  the  missing  central  group  of  the  east  pediment. 
In  any  case,  the  two  pediments  stood  in  a dramatic  relation 
to  each  other,  with  a certain  number  of  the  personae  carried 
over  from  the  one  act  to  the  other. 

The  facts  are  there,  and  need  no  illustration  from  other 
works  of  Greek  sculpture.  But  we  may  mention  as  more  or 
less  analogous  and  nearly  contemporary  the  narrow  frieze  of 


44 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


the  Nereid  monument  in  the  British  Museum,  where  we  see 
first  an  assault  on  a walled  city,  and  next  the  same  walled 
city  being  surrendered  to  the  captor.  On  Roman  reliefs,  as 
on  the  columns  of  Trajan  and  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  such 
repetitions  are  constant.  But  once  we  are  satisfied  that  the 
conception  of  both  pediments  involves  the  idea  of  “interested 
spectators,”  the  extent  to  which  the  same  figures  may 
appear  in  both  pediments  would  depend  on  what  degree  of 
intimacy  the  sculptor  wished  to  express  between  the  angle 
groups  of  both  pediments.  In  both  the  locality  was  the 
same,  in  our  opinion.  Of  course,  the  sculptor  was  free  to 
choose  a different  set  of  local  representatives  for  each  angle. 
But  our  suggestion  is  that  he  may  equally  have  carried  over 
an  angle  group  from  the  first  act  of  the  drama  to  the  second. 
In  a word,  we  suggest  that  the  so-called  Fates  are  the  three 
peculiarly  Attic  personifications  of  morning  dew,  Aglauros, 
Herse,  and  Pandrosos,  as  many  have  believed  them  to  be 
since  Welcker’s  identification  of  them  in  1845.  They  would 
thus  be  a companion  group  to  the  three  Horae  in  the  left 
wing,  who  had  the  power  of  rolling  away  the  clouds  and 
revealing  the  blue  sky.  These  three  sisters  were  known 
simply  as  the  Parthenoi,  and  their  position  on  the  Parthenon 
near  the  waning  moon  at  dawn  would  be  appropriate.  They 
would  be  there  as  strictly  local  semi-divine  beings.  When 
they  reappear  in  the  west  pediment  it  is  as  the  daughters 
of  Cecrops,  about  whom  legend  had  woven  a local  tale 
connected  with  a grotto  on  the  side  of  the  Acropolis,  and  the 
birth  of  the  boy  Erichthonios.  Whether  the  sculptor  had 
meant  us  to  assume  an  interval  of  years  between  the  birth  of 
Athene  and  her  rivalry  with  Poseidon,  no  one  can  say.  We 


THE  FATES 


45 


prefer  to  think  that  the  one  act  followed  immediately  upon 
the  other,  but  that  would  not  necessarily  exclude  the  re- 
appearance of  the  Dew  Maidens  as  the  legendary  daughters 
of  Cecrops.  In  any  case,  we  do  not  press  our  view  beyond 
insisting  on  the  strictly  local  character  of  the  persons  in  all 
the  angles,  including  the  sun  and  moon,  who,  as  we  have 
said,  were  the  sun  and  moon  as  known  to  the  Athenians  in 
their  daily  life. 

Whether  Fates  or  Dew  Maidens,  the  three  figures  K,  L,  M 
have  exercised  a singular  fascination  from  the  moment  of  their 
becoming  widely  known.  Perhaps  we  should  rather  say  the 
two  figures  L,  M.  For  undoubtedly  it  is  the  grouping  of 
these  two  that  excites  the  most  pleasure,  so  simple  and  so 
obvious  is  the  motive,  so  grand  the  bodily  forms,  and  so 
beautiful  the  drapery.  The  motive  we  have  already 
described — one  woman  putting  her  heels  back  and  trying  to 
raise  hurriedly  another  who  has  been  sleeping  against  her. 
It  is  one  of  those  universal  actions  which  need  no  explanation 
even  to  the  simplest  of  mankind.  The  third  figure  K is  a 
little  detached  as  we  see  her  now.  But  an  examination  of 
the  backs  of  K and  L shows  that  when  the  group  was  put 
up  in  position  it  had  been  found  necessary  to  dig  deep  holes 
in  the  back  of  L and  in  the  lowermost  part  of  K,  in  order 
that  the  two  figures  might  be  brought  nearer  together  and 
more  closely  knit.  The  left  arm  of  K,  now  missing,  had 
then  been  firmly  planted  on  the  back  of  the  shoulder  of  L, 
whose  right  arm  again  crosses  over  on  the  thigh  of  K. 
Thus  originally  the  whole  triad  had  been  closely  bound 
together.  The  figure  whose  bodily  attractions  are  most 
obvious  is  M.  Such  movement  as  we  see  in  her  body  is 


46 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


hardly  voluntary  on  her  part.  She  is  simply  an  object 
of  study  and  admiration.  No  wonder  she  has  been  some- 
times called  Aphrodite,  nor  that  recently  she  has  been 
compared  with  the  “Aphrodite  in  the  Gardens”  at  Athens, 
by  Alcamenes,  a work  renowned  for  its  elegance.1  She  has 
even  been  claimed  as  herself  from  the  hand  of  that  favourite 
pupil  of  Pheidias.  But  whatever  her  charms,  we  must  not 
forget  that  she  is  only  a secondary  figure  in  a great 
composition. 

If  we  are  right  in  describing  the  Theseus  or  Cephalos 
of  the  opposite  angle  as  sunlit,  we  should  expect  to  find 
the  corresponding  figure  M sculptured  as  in  twilight,  and 
illumined  by  the  waning  moon  ; that  is  to  say,  without  deep 
shadows  in  the  folds  of  the  drapery  such  as  the  sun  casts, 
but  with  a predominance  of  edges  of  folds  as  if  seen 
emerging  in  obscurity.  Doubtless  the  mere  attitude  of  the 
figure  necessarily  leads  to  an  effect  of  this  kind.  Her 
body  is  tilted  over  to  the  front  in  such  a manner  that  the 
folds  of  the  chiton  on  her  right  side  hang  down  and  fill  up 
what  otherwise  would  have  been  a deep  mass  of  shadow. 
Her  dress  is  drawn  tightly  round  her  legs,  producing  sharp- 
edged  folds,  and  the  drapery  covering  the  rock  on  which 
she  lies  falls  in  flat  masses.  It  would  seem  as  if  the  sculptor 
had  chosen  this  attitude  and  pose  with  an  instinct  for  the 
effect  of  a figure  seen  in  the  dull  light  of  the  sinking 
moon.  And  in  any  case  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the 
fact  of  all  three  figures  being  closely  draped,  reasonable 

1 Amelung  in  Roem.  Mittheilungen , in  the  Gardens.  See  also  Reisch,  in 
1901,  pi.  1,  2,  p.  21,  considers  that  a the  Jahresheften  d.  Oesterr.  Inst.,  i.  p. 
statue  in  the  Doria  Pamphili  palace  at  77  fol. 

Rome  may  be  a copy  of  the  Aphrodite 


THE  FATES  AND  SELENE  47 

enough  as  that  would  be  in  all  circumstances  in  the  time  of 
Pheidias,  may  still  be  claimed  as  artistically  appropriate  to 
the  occasion  of  morning  twilight. 

There  are  some  questions  of  artistic  execution  which  we 
must  notice.  In  the  figure  K the  drapery  which  falls  over 
her  left  thigh  is  of  extraordinary  complexity  and  beauty, 
where  the  folds  were  intended  to  be  seen.  But  the  moment 
we  look  a little  further  towards  the  back  of  the  figure  we 
come  upon  folds  which  are  merely  blocked  out  in  the 
roughest  manner.  How  far  this  sudden  change  from  utmost 
beauty  of  detail  to  general  negligence  was  due  to  haste  or 
to  a consideration  of  what  would  be  seen  and  what  not,  we 
cannot  of  course  say.  The  fact  remains  that  in  most  cases 
the  backs  of  the  pediment  figures  have  not  been  finished  to 
the  extent  usually  supposed.  No  one  would  for  a moment 
deny  that  the  backs  of  the  group  L,  M,  are  a splendid 
conception,  and  worthy  of  the  greatest  of  artists.  But  the 
greatest  of  sculptors  may  at  times  be  casual  in  his  execution, 
and  we  maintain  that  the  backs  of  this  group  are  to  an 
extent  casual  in  execution. 

Returning  to  the  general  scheme  of  the  east  pediment,  we 
observe  that  the  Selene  in  the  right  angle  has  of  late  been 
called  Night.  The  argument  is  that  Selene,  in  the  time  of 
Pheidias,  had  no  chariot,  but  rode  on  a horse  or  a mule. 
On  the  base  of  Zeus  at  Olympia,  Pausanias  (v.  11,  3)  speaks 
of  her  as  having  only  one  horse,  and  on  certain  con- 
temporary vases  she  appears  riding  on  a horse  or  a mule. 
The  daily  splendour  of  the  sun  (aliusque  et  idem)  might 
well  be  represented  by  a quadriga,  while  the  fainter  light 
of  the  moon  would  be  sufficiently  indicated  by  one  horse, 


48 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


and,  in  fact,  on  the  Parthenon  only  one  of  the  horses’  heads 
was  practically  visible.  In  later  art  the  moon  had  her 
quadriga  equal  with  the  sun.  For  all  we  know  that 
tradition  had  gone  back  to  the  Parthenon  times.  But  where 
is  there  in  Greek  poetry  or  art  any  suggestion  that  Night 
ever  sets  or  wanes  in  a chariot,  one  of  her  horses’  heads 
already  dipping  over  the  horizon,  as  on  the  Parthenon 
pediment?  Euripides  (Ion,  1149)  may  speak  of  black-robed 
night  as  a companion  group  to  Helios,  and  one  poet  may  call 
the  Fates  “fair  armed  daughters  of  night,”  while  another 
regards  them  as  “daughters  of  chaos.”  In  the  Parthenon 
pediment  it  is  a question  of  sunrise  and  a waning  light  which 
surely  can  be  no  other  than  that  of  the  moon.  But  apart 
from  the  names  of  the  two  luminaries,  we  note  that  whereas 
in  the  west  pediment  the  two  chariots  of  gods  are  well 
towards  the  centre,  here  in  the  east  the  two  chariots  are 
little  more  than  visible.  Nor  is  this  distinction  inappropriate 
to  the  different  stages  of  the  drama. 

We  have  next  to  consider  the  Victory,  J,  and  her  proper 
place  in  the  pediment.  First  we  must  reckon  with  her 
wings.  These,  it  is  true,  are  now  wanting,  but  we  can 
see  from  two  deep  sockets  in  the  back  of  her  shoulders 
that  the  wings  may  have  risen  above  her  head,  possibly 
to  a very  considerable  height,  in  any  case  as  much  as  to 
make  her  present  position  in  the  Elgin  Room  impossible. 
And  there  are  other  reasons  why  her  present  position  is 
untenable.  First,  Victory  was  intimately  associated  with 
Zeus  and  Athene ; secondly,  she  was  always  of  small 
dimensions  compared  with  these  two  deities  ; and  thirdly, 
the  Madrid  puteal  shows  her  between  these  two.  To  satisfy 


VICTORY 


49 


these  conditions  she  must  be  moved  near  to  the  centre  of 
the  pediment.  At  the  same  time  she  must  still  retain  her 
present  attitude  of  moving  from  right  to  left.  To  place  her 
between  Zeus  and  Athene  would  involve  two  things — first, 
that  she  would  have  to  be  flying  in  the  air,  which  does  not 
seem  consistent  with  the  action  of  the  torso  as  preserved  ; 
and  secondly,  that  she  would  thus  necessarily  be  approaching 
Zeus  to  crown  him  rather  than  Athene,  contrary  to  the 
evidence  of  the  Madrid  puteal  and  contrary  to  our 
expectations.  A more  appropriate  place,  these  things 
considered,  would  be  next  to  Athene  on  the  right.  There 
she  would  still  be  of  small  dimensions  compared  with  the 
central  deities. 

In  those  days  Victory  would  have  offered  to  Athene  not  a 
wreath,  but  a taenia  or  ribbon,  as  does  the  Nike  on  the  hand 
of  the  Athene  Parthenos,  but  she  need  not,  in  a similar 
manner,  have  held  the  ribbon  one  end  in  each  hand.  We 
can  imagine  her  left  hand  holding  high  one  end  of  a bronze- 
gilt  ribbon,  the  other  end  fastened  by  the  slight  iron  plug 
which  still  remains  on  her  left  thigh.  Her  right  arm  would 
then  be  stretched  forward  to  welcome  Athene’s  arrival.  For 
the  rest  we  cannot  leave  this  torso  without  expressing  the 
highest  admiration  of  its  beauty.  The  grandeur  and 
simplicity  of  her  bodily  forms  she  possesses  in  common 
with  every  other  figure  of  the  Parthenon.  But  she  is 
peculiar  in  wearing  a very  thin  and  slight  costume 
suggestive  of  a swift  messenger.  In  that  character  her 
chiton  necessarily  clings  to  the  body.  That  purpose  it 
serves  and  no  more.  There  was  no  occasion  for  im- 
pressiveness. What  was  wanted  was  a robust,  swift  figure, 

H 


5° 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


clad  lightly,  but  ideally,  and  in  keeping  with  her  large  wings, 
which  also  in  those  days  would  have  combined  long,  powerful 
pinions  with  small,  finely  chased  feathers.  Compare  the 
drapery  on  her  body  with  that  of  the  Victory  of  Olympia, 
and  we  see  at  once  where  the  higher  ideal  comes  in. 
Indeed,  on  the  left  side  of  the  Victory  of  Olympia  the  dress 
is  treated  in  a very  indifferent  manner,  which  perhaps  may 
be  excused  by  the  fact  that  Paeonios,  the  sculptor,  was 
obliged,  in  the  circumstances,  to  produce  an  impressive  and 
striking  figure  alone  on  a lofty  pedestal. 

With  regard  to  the  great  gap  in  the  centre  of  the  pediment, 
we  have  already  said  that  several  of  the  missing  statues  can 
be  imagined  with  reasonable  certainty  ; in  the  very  centre, 
Zeus,  Athene,  Victory,  and  Hephaestos  (or  Prometheus). 
It  is  almost  beyond  doubt  that  Zeus  had  been  seated 
facing  the  right,  and  that  Athene  was  before  him,  while 
behind  him  Hephaestos  was  hurrying  away  after  cleaving 
the  head  of  Zeus  with  his  axe.  There  remains  room  for  six 
more  figures,  of  whom  we  are  told,  on  the  present-day 
evidence  of  the  bed  of  the  pediment,  that  two  had  been 
seated,  one  on  each  side  of  the  centre  group,  the  others 
having  been  standing,  two  on  each  side.  But  valuable  as 
this  evidence  from  the  actual  bed  or  floor  of  the  pediment 
may  yet  become  with  increased  knowledge  from  other  sources, 
no  satisfactory  result  is  to  be  obtained  from  discussing  it  now. 
That,  we  think,  will  be  evident  from  the  attempts  of  Professor 
Furtwaengler.1  His  scheme  may  prove  to  be  in  some  parts 
right,  in  others  wrong.  But  we  cannot  think  that  his  notion 
of  the  Athene  in  the  very  centre  can  be  right.  Allowing 

1 On  page  29  of  his  Intermezzi. 


TECHNICAL  QUESTIONS 


5i 


that  on  her  own  temple  the  most  conspicuous  place  of  all 
was  her  due ; yet  it  was  her  birth  from  the  brain  of  her 
father,  Zeus,  that  was  the  dominant  feature  of  the  com- 
position, not  alone  her  own  personality.  From  Furtwaengler’s 
point  of  view  we  can  well  understand  his  choosing  for  the 

very  centre  a stately  Athene  like  the  marble  statue  in  the 
/■ 

Ecole  des  Beaux  Arts  in  Paris,1  and  pushing  Zeus  to  the 
side.  But  we  think  his  notion  radically  wrong,  and  certainly 
the  Paris  statue,  dignified  as  she  is,  is  far  beneath  the 
Parthenon  sculptures. 

While  declining  to  discuss  here  speculative  reconstructions 
of  the  east  pediment,  we,  on  the  other  hand,  readily  welcome 
them  when  they  are  carried  out  on  artistic  principles,  so  as 
to  exhibit  the  dominating  effects  of  the  central  deities  over 
the  secondary  groups  in  the  angles.  For  example,  it  may 
now  be  said  that  Cockerell’s  reconstruction  is  fantastic  in 
some  important  respects,2  yet  with  the  instincts  of  a true 
artist  he  shows  this  relationship  of  the  several  parts  of  the 
composition,  and  that  is  the  first  thing  we  require.  He  had 
as  his  guide  the  west  pediment,  which  he  knew  from  Carrey’s 
drawings.  We  have  in  addition  the  example  of  the  east 
pediment  of  Olympia. 

To  conclude  with  a technical  matter:  at  a number  of 
points  on  the  sculptures  of  both  pediments,  especially  the 
east,  there  may  be  seen  patches  of  a golden  colour.  These 
patches  are  found  in  places  which  have  been  sheltered  more 

1 Intermezzi , p.  17.  This  is  the  House  of  Pilate  in  Seville.  They  are 
marble  known  as  the  Torso  Medici.  published  with  their  hideous  restorations 
Since  his  theory  was  announced  two  in  the  Jahresheften  des  Oesterr.  Arch. 
more  copies  of  the  same  original  have  Inst 1899,  pis.  2,  3. 
been  recognised  in  the  Court  of  the  2 Museum  Marbles,  v i.  pi.  21. 


52 


THE  EAST  PEDIMENT 


or  less  from  the  weather,  and  may  therefore  be  regarded  as 
preserving  the  original  surface  of  the  marble,  which  else- 
where has  been  eaten  away.  One  of  the  most  noticeable  of 
these  occurs  under  the  left  leg  of  Theseus  (or  Cephalos). 
It  appears  that  the  sculptures  had  been  covered  originally 
with  a thin  wash  or  size  of  lime,  so  thin  and  transparent 
that  in  places  we  can  see  the  finest  tool-marks  through  it. 
Probably  that  was  what  the  ancients  called  circumlitio.  A 
surface  of  this  kind  would  be  far  more  suitable  than  the 
marble  itself  for  the  addition  of  colours  on  the  borders  of 
the  draperies  and  other  details,  and  there  is  no  question  now 
that  bright  colours  were  freely  employed  on  archaic  Greek 
sculptures,  as  on  the  friezes  of  Delphi  and  the  archaic 
pediments  and  statues  of  the  Acropolis  of  Athens.  Remains 
of  bright  colouring  were  found  on  the  pediment  sculptures  of 
Olympia,  and  to  take  a much  later  example,  on  the  sculptures 
of  the  Mausoleum.  We  do  not,  however,  suppose  that  the 
golden  tint  now  visible  on  the  Parthenon  sculptures  represents 
the  original  colour.  More  probably  the  original  colour  was 
an  ivory  white,  intended  at  once  to  tone  down  the  harsh 
surface  of  the  marble,  and  to  be  a facile  medium  for  details 
painted  in  bright  hues. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 

[Plate  X.] 

IN  a Doric  temple  there  were  square  spaces  immediately 
above  the  architrave  which  were  called  metopes.  These 
square  metopes  might  or  might  not  be  sculptured.  On  the 
Theseum  at  Athens,  for  instance,  only  the  metopes  on  the 
two  fronts  are  sculptured ; those  along  the  sides  are  left 
blank.  But  on  the  Parthenon,  such  was  the  splendour  of 
the  temple,  every  one  of  the  ninety-two  metopes  was  sculp- 
tured in  high-relief.  Many  of  them  remain  in  their  place 
in  Athens,  but  are  now,  for  the  most  part,  so  much  dis- 
figured by  weather  as  to  be  barely  recognisable  even  as 
regards  the  subjects  they  were  intended  to  represent.  The 
south  was  the  sunny  side  of  the  Parthenon,  and  there  the 
metopes  had  suffered  comparatively  little  when  Carrey  drew 
them  in  1674.  Unfortunately  he  had  only  time  to  draw 
those  of  the  south  side.  A few  years  after  came  the 
Venetian  bombardment  (1687),  when  the  Parthenon  was 
blown  up,  producing  a great  gap  across  the  middle,  and 
destroying  amid  much  else  the  centre  group  of  metopes  on 
the  south  side  which  Carrey  had  drawn.  So  that  now  the 
only  record  existing  of  those  missing  metopes  of  the  south 

53 


54 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


side  are  the  drawings  of  Carrey  (PI.  X.).  Of  the  metopes  that 
remained  on  the  building  at  either  side  of  the  great  gap,  fifteen 
were  subsequently  removed  by  Lord  Elgin  about  the  year 
1800,  and  ultimately  placed  in  the  British  Museum;  his 
colleague,  the  French  ambassador,  sent  one  to  Paris,  where 
it  may  be  seen  in  the  Louvre ; two  are  still  in  Athens. 
Thus  there  exist  now  only  eighteen  of  the  south  metopes, 
which  originally  were  thirty-two  in  number.  As  we  have 
said,  the  remaining  fourteen  are  known  only  from  Carrey’s 
drawings,  except  for  a fragment  here  and  there  found  on 
the  Acropolis. 

With  these  materials  at  hand  it  is  possible  to  understand 
the  general  scheme  of  the  south  metopes,  and  in  a great 
measure  also  to  enjoy  their  beauty.  The  deplorable  con- 
dition of  the  others  we  must  consider  later  on.  Accordingly 
at  each  end  of  the  south  series  we  find  Lapiths  and 
Centaurs  engaged  in  the  struggle  that  ensued  at  the 
marriage  feast  of  Peirithoos.v  Each  of  these  metopes  consists 
of  a group  of  two  figures,  a Centaur  fighting  with  a Lapith 
or  carrying  off  a Lapith  woman.  Each  metope  is  charged 
to  the  utmost  with  animation,  and  the  general  effect  is  that 
of  nude  forms,  relieved  only  here  and  there  by  a little 
drapery  or  by  the  dress  of  a Lapith  woman  who  is  being 
carried  away  forcibly.  But  in  the  middle  of  the  series  we 
have  nine  metopes  (13-21),  in  which  most  of  the  figures 
are  stately,  dressed  women.  We  recognise  at  once  the 
effect  of  repose,  which  is  obtained  by  introducing  in  the 
middle  of  the  series  these  imposing  figures,  so  differently 
characterised  from  the  turbulent  groups  at  the  two  ends. 
For  this  reason  alone  they  must  have  formed  an  integral  part 


1 

I 

a 


GENERAL  SCHEME 


55 


of  the  whole  composition  of  the  south  side  ; not  only  that, 
but  the  central  and  most  essential  part.  We  therefore  take 
them  to  represent  an  isolated  scene  at  the  marriage  of 
Peirithoos,  more  or  less  indoors,  or  at  all  events  at  the  central 
place  of  the  marriage  feast.  The  prevalence  of  womanly 
figures  accords  with  this  view,  and  the  concentration  of  them 
suggests  alarm  occasioned  by  the  turbulence  of  the  Centaurs 
at  the  extremes  of  the  scene.  The  combats  of  Centaurs 
and  Lapiths  could  not  have  been  separated  as  they  are 
into  so  many  metopes  on  the  left  and  so  many  on  the 
right,  yet  all  expressing  the  same  sentiment,  without  some- 
thing in  the  centre  to  account  for  all  the  fighting,  either 
as  cause  or  as  effect,  or  possibly  both  cause  and  effect 
combined.  In  one  of  these  metopes,  18,  two  women, 
obviously  in  dread,  move  hurriedly  away.  In  another,  21, 
we  see  two  women  beside  a sacred  image,  or  xoanon , instantly 
recalling  a group  in  the  battle  of  Centaurs  and  Lapiths  on 
the  frieze  of  Phigaleia,  where  a Lapith  woman  clings  to  a 
similar  xoanon.  But  the  metope  15  containing  a chariot 
group  is  curiously  unique  amid  the  others,  unless  the 
charioteer  may  be  the  goddess  Artemis  coming  to  the 
rescue  of  the  Lapith  women,  as  she  does  in  a chariot  of 
deer  on  the  Phigaleian  frieze.  The  next  metope,  16,  appears 
to  be  even  more  disconcerting  at  first  sight.  It  represents 
one  man  standing  over  another  who  has  been  struck  down 
mortally.  Yet  if  both  men  are  Lapiths,  as  they  presum- 
ably are,  the  one  would  assuredly  not  have  struck  down 
the  other.  Nor  indeed  does  it  follow  from  the  sculpture 
itself  that  the  one  has  slain  the  other.  On  the  contrary, 
the  stricken  Lapith  may  be  a victim  of  the  Centaurs 


56 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


left  behind,  over  whom  the  other  Lapith  expresses  his 
horror. 

For  the  rest  the  central  metopes  adapt  themselves  reason- 
ably enough  to  the  theory  of  their  being  for  the  most  part 
the  women  of  the  wedding  feast  who  so  far  had  escaped  the 
Centaurs.1  In  that  portion  of  the  composition  we  expect 
a preponderance  of  women,  because  most  of  the  men  would 
have  already  gone  out  to  fight  the  Centaurs  or  to  rescue  the 
women  who  are  being  carried  off.  In  that  case  we  expect 
indications  of  a wedding  ceremony,  such  as  music  and 
sacrifice ; we  expect  signs  of  alarm ; we  may  find  both. 
Let  us  see  slowly. 

In  the  first  of  these  central  metopes,  13,  are  a young 
woman  and  a young  man,  turning  away  from  each  other,  the 
woman  having  one  arm  raised.  These  two  figures  are  not 
characterised  as  other  than  ordinary  persons,  but  their 
attitude  towards  each  other  is  clearly  that  of  alarm.  The 
youth  is  gathering  his  dress  as  if  to  run.  In  the  next 
metope,  14,  we  have  again  a young  man  and  a young 
woman.  But  here  the  youth  is  in  great  alarm.  The  young 
woman  still  holds  in  her  hands  objects  connected  with  a feast 
or  a sacrifice.  Carrey’s  drawing  is  not  sufficiently  clear  to 
decide  what  exactly  they  are.  We  have  already  spoken  of 
metopes  15,  16,  and  now  pass  on  to  17.  Here  we  have 
again  a youth  and  a maiden — he  turning  away  from  her 
instead  of  listening,  she  holding  a lyre  in  her  hands,  which 
perhaps  she  has  ceased  to  play.  Carrey’s  drawing  does 

1 M.  Perrot  thinks  that  these  central  foundation  of  the  cult  of  Athene  (MS- 
metopes  were  occupied  with  the  birth  langes  Weil , p.  378). 
of  Erichthonios  and  legends  of  the 


CENTRAL  GROUP 


57 


not  show  quite  distinctly  that  it  is  a lyre  she  holds,  but 
fortunately  there  has  survived  from  this  metope  just  the 
fragment  which  was  required  to  prove  that  it  is  a lyre, 
with  belt  round  it  to  enable  the  player  to  hold  it  in  its 
place.  It  was  not  necessary  in  ordinary  circumstances  for 
the  maiden  to  clutch  the  lyre  with  her  right  hand  as  she 
does  ; her  doing  so  can  only  signify  astonishment  or 
alarm.  Next,  18,  we  see  two  women  rushing  away  in 
excitement,  leaving  behind  a young  girl,  who  in  her 
youthful  ignorance  stands  looking  back  to  see  what  is  the 
matter.  In  Carrey’s  drawing  she  appears  to  hold  a dish 
in  her  left  hand,  in  which  case  she  was  doubtless  a girl 
attendant  at  the  wedding.  Then  follows  19,  a group  of  two 
women,  of  whom  one  is  a stately  figure  wearing  a veil  like 
a bride.  In  her  pose,  with  the  left  hand  raised  to  her  face 
and  her  right  hand  supporting  the  left  elbow,  she  recalls 
the  bride  Hippodameia  in  the  east  pediment  of  Olympia, 
except  that  the  intensity  of  her  attitude  is  even  stronger. 
In  this  respect  she  may  be  compared  with  the  striking  figure 
of  Medea  in  the  Lateran  relief  in  Rome,  than  which  there 
is  probably  no  more  grandly  conceived  female  figure  among 
existing  Greek  reliefs.  A bride  plunged  in  profound  medita- 
tion would  be  the  natural  description  of  this  metope. 

In  the  sculptures  of  the  west  pediment  of  Olympia  the 
bride  was  the  first  person  seized  on  by  the  Centaurs,  and 
was  necessarily  placed  in  the  centre  of  the  composition. 
But  in  a long  series  of  detached  metopes  with  no  gradation 
of  scale  possible,  the  problem  was  different.  There  was  no 
other  way  of  suggesting  the  greater  importance  of  one  figure 
over  another  than  by  dignity  of  pose  and  demeanour. 

1 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


58 

Instead  of  allowing  the  bride  to  be  carried  away,  it  was 
open  to  the  sculptor  to  make  her  an  imposing  figure  in  the 
central  group  of  metopes,  as  we  think  he  has  done. 

Next,  20,  we  have  two  women,  standing  back  to  back. 
One  of  them,  as  drawn  by  Carrey,  holds  a scroll  over  what 
seems  to  be  a table.  He  may  have  drawn  accurately  what 
he  saw,  and  for  all  we  know  to  the  contrary  a woman 
holding  out  a scroll  over  a table  may  be  consistent  with  a 
marriage  ceremony.  But  he  has  drawn  the  other  woman 
turning  her  back  to  her  companion,  and  holding  in  her  hand 
what  appears  to  be  a knife,  as  if  she  were  preparing  for  an 
emergency.  Finally,  21,  we  have  two  women  gathered 
round  an  image  or  xoanon , towards  which,  as  we  have 
already  said,  they  had  gone  for  protection,  as  in  the 
Phigaleian  frieze. 

Long  ago  it  was  proposed  to  interpret  these  central 
metopes  as  representing  the  marriage  scene  of  Peirithoos, 
interrupted  by  the  inroad  of  the  Centaurs.  Since  then  this 
view  has  been  generally  rejected,  but  without,  as  we  think, 
due  consideration.  The  only  alternative  which  has  been 
suggested  is  that  the  central  metopes  represent  a congeries 
of  legends  having  no  direct  connection  with  the  Lapiths 
and  Centaurs  ; but  this  seems  absurd,  since  we  must  as  a 
consequence  assume  that  Pheidias,  great  artist  as  he  was — 
greatest  of  all,  perhaps,  in  his  masterly  gift  of  composition  on 
a grand  scale — had  abandoned  this  gift  in  the  south  metopes. 

On  the  analogy  of  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon,  as  we  shall 
see  afterwards,  the  metopes  of  the  north  side  of  the  temple 
should  correspond  in  subject  to  those  of  the  south,  of  which 
we  have  been  speaking  so  far.  That  is  to  say,  the  north 


COMPARISON  WITH  NORTH  METOPES 


59 


metopes  should  also  represent  the  struggles  of  Centaurs  and 
Lapiths  at  the  marriage  of  Peirithoos  and  Deidameia.  In 
their  present  state  the  north  metopes,  so  far  as  they  exist  at 
all,  are,  with  one  exception,  too  much  disfigured  to  settle 
the  question  definitely  by  themselves.  But  to  judge  from 
certain  drawings  that  were  made  in  the  seventeenth  century 
from  some  of  the  central  metopes  of  that  series — now  entirely 
lost — it  appears  that  they  at  least  had  represented  Centaurs 
(PL  XII.,  Figs,  a , b , d).  It  is  equally  clear  from  the  metopes 
still  in  their  place  on  the  building  towards  each  end  of  the 
north  side  that  they  consist  largely  of  female  figures.  Thus 
it  would  seem  that  the  sculptor,  while  repeating  the  same 
subject  of  Centaurs  and  Lapiths  as  on  the  south  side,  had 
reversed  his  composition  in  this  way,  that  on  the  north  side 
the  combats  of  Centaurs  and  Lapiths  occupied  the  central 
metopes,  while  the  women  and  others  associated  with  the 
marriage,  but  not  yet  attacked,  were  placed  on  the  two  sides. 
That  may  be  regarded  as  fairly  certain.  The  purpose  of  the 
sculptor  is  obvious.  A visitor  to  the  Acropolis  of  Athens 
approached  the  Parthenon  from  the  west,  and  would  see  the 
metopes  of  the  west  front  first,  with  its  Gigantomachia 
still  identifiable  as  such.  He  would  then  have  to  choose 
whether  he  would  pass  along  by  the  north  or  by  the  south 
side  of  the  Parthenon,  following  the  metopes  as  he  went  on. 
Whichever  side  he  chose  he  would  find  the  same  subject 
— the  Centauromachia  in  connection  with  the  marriage  of 
Peirithoos  — the  same  subject  on  each  side,  but  with  the 
order  of  the  composition  inverted.  So  that,  in  fact,  it  was 
not  necessary  for  the  visitor  to  examine  both  sides  so  far  as 
the  subject  was  concerned. 


6o 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


Only  one  of  the  north  metopes,  32,  has  been  preserved 
fairly  well.  There  is  a cast  of  it  in  the  Elgin  Room  (PI.  XI.). 
It  represents  two  Lapith  women,  one  sitting  on  a rock, 
the  other  approaching  her.  This  metope  deserves  careful 
inspection,  because,  apart  from  it,  we  have  almost  no  means 
of  controlling  Carrey’s  drawings  of  the  Lapith  women  in  the 
south  metopes,  and  of  translating,  so  to  speak,  his  drawings 
into  actual  sculpture.  If  we  could  do  so  effectively,  we 
should  then  be  in  the  same  position  with  regard  to  them  as 
we  are  in  with  regard  to  his  drawings  of  the  Centaurs  and 
Lapiths  from  the  flanks  of  the  south  side,  brought  home  by 
Lord  Elgin.  Carrey’s  drawings  of  these  Centaurs  and 
Lapiths  indicate  the  general  pose  and  action  of  the  figures. 
To  a great  extent  they  reflect  also  the  style  of  the  sculpture. 
But  they  are  hasty  sketches,  and  necessarily  do  not  convey 
to  us  the  sense  of  reality  and  force  which  strikes  us  in 
the  actual  marbles. 

Let  us  examine  this  northern  metope  from  the  point  of 
view  just  indicated.  The  woman  on  the  right  is  seated 
on  a rock  with  one  foot  raised.  The  nearer  foot  is  broken 
off,  but  clearly  it  has  been  drawn  back  as  if  in  excitement. 
The  lowering  of  the  knee  and  what  remains  of  the  leg  show 
this  much.  The  right  hand  has  been  raised  a little,  while  the 
left  arm,  which  is  now  gone,  is  known  to  have  been  stretched 
upward  in  alarm  ; it  is  so  in  a drawing  by  one  of  Lord 
Elgin’s  artists  made  when  the  metope  was  in  better  condition. 
She  wears  an  under  chiton  of  a thin  material,  which  shows 
on  her  breast  and  arms  and  towards  the  feet.  Over  this  she 
has  a thick  himation  wrapped  round  the  legs  and  falling  over 
the  left  shoulder.  The  figure  standing  before  her,  obviously 


PL.  XI. 


METOPE. 

32,  NORTH  SIDE 


COMPARISON  WITH  ONE  OF  THE  NORTH  METOPES  61 


a girl,  expresses  some  alarm  in  the  customary  Greek  manner 
by  seizing  one  end  of  her  himation,  or  mantle,  with  the  left 
hand,  while  with  the  right  she  clutches  the  other  end  of  it, 
and  drags  it  round  her  back  to  her  right  side.  She  wears  a 
thick  chiton,  open  a little  on  the  right  side  and  girt  round 
the  waist.  Her  right  foot  is  thrown  back  with  the  ungainly 
but  true  result  that  the  heavy  material  of  the  chiton  falls 
straight  down  from  the  knee  instead  of  following  the  bend 
of  the  leg.  The  same  effect  appears  in  the  seated  figure. 
We  are  calling  attention  to  these  details  of  drapery  because 
their  very  heaviness,  not  to  say  ungainliness  in  parts,  must, 
as  we  think,  have  been  intended  as  artistic  repose  and 
contrast  to  the  display  of  flesh,  human  and  equine,  in  the 
other  metopes.  Observe  also  that  the  relief  is  very  high. 
The  figures  are  almost  in  the  round,  quite  as  much  so  as  the 
Centaurs  and  Lapiths.  Carrey’s  drawings  of  the  missing 
women  of  the  south  metopes  do  not  in  the  least  convey  this 
impression.  We  must  translate  them,  so  to  speak,  into  high 
relief  of  this  kind,  with  its  deeply  cut,  strongly  rendered,  and 
heavy  masses  of  folds. 

Assuming  that  the  central  metopes  of  the  south  side  had 
been  sculptured  for  the  most  part  in  this  massive  manner, 
displaying  a prevalence  of  heavy  vertical  lines,  we  can  appre- 
ciate the  purpose  of  the  sculptor  in  seeking  to  produce  by 
these  means  a general  effect  of  repose  in  the  centre  in 
contrast  to  the  varied  and  often  violent  action  on  the  two 
flanks.  And  this  element  of  contrast  is  the  more  obvious 
when  we  remark  that  while  the  groups  on  the  flanks  are  all 
in  profile,  those  of  the  centre,  or  most  of  them,  are  turned  to 
the  front,  either  fully,  as  in  19  and  21,  or  nearly  so,  as  in  20, 


62 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


two  women  turning  away  from  each  other ; 1 7,  a woman 
turning  her  back  to  a man  who  stands  to  front;  13,  a 
woman  standing  to  front  and  a youth  turning  away  a little  ; 
14,  a woman  to  the  front  and  a youth  rushing  away  in 
fear,  not  of  her,  obviously,  but  of  something  which  is 
happening  outside.  In  short,  we  have  in  these  central 
metopes  a peaceful  scene  which  is  beginning  to  be  broken 
into  by  a disturbance  from  without. 

The  disturbance  has,  in  fact,  begun  very  seriously.  Al- 
ready five  of  the  Lapith  maidens  have  been  seized  by 
Centaurs  and  carried  outside,  two  on  the  left  of  the  central 
group,  10  and  12,  and  three  on  the  right,  22,  25,  and  29. 
The  danger  is  close  at  hand.  In  one  instance,  22,  the 
Lapith  maiden  is  being  seized  hold  of  at  the  very  side  of 
her  two  sisters,  who  approach  the  sacred  image  for  pro- 
tection, 21.  Of  these  two,  possibly  the  one  on  the  right 
with  her  breast  bare  has  just  escaped.  The  earliest  victim 
was  doubtless  the  one  farthest  from  the  centre  on  the 
right,  29,  which  metope  we  possess  in  the  Museum.  The 
Centaur  has  had  time  to  throw  her  up  in  his  arms  and 
make  off.  In  the  instances  nearer  the  centre  the  action 
is  less  complete,  and  in  the  metope  nearest  the  centre  the 
scene  is  almost  sentimental.  Thus  a certain  gradation  of 
effect  seems  to  have  been  intended. 

In  preparing  a series  of  detached  groups  of  sculpture  such 
as  the  metopes  of  a Doric  temple,  it  was  a difficult  task 
for  a sculptor  to  find  some  common  bond  of  union  for 
them  all.  In  the  temple  of  Zeus  at  Olympia  there  were 
only  twelve  metopes.  In  that  case,  the  twelve  labours 
of  Heracles  supplied  a satisfactory  bond  of  union,  and  were 


GENERAL  SCHEME 


63 


appropriate  to  a national  temple.  On  the  Theseum,  as  it 
is  called,  at  Athens,  the  labours  of  Theseus  suggested 
themselves  naturally  for  the  metopes,  but  as  these  labours 
could  not  be  multiplied  so  as  to  extend  round  the  whole 
building,  the  side  metopes  were  left  blank.  The  archaic 
metopes  which  have  survived  from  the  Doric  temples  of 
Selinus  in  Sicily  appear  to  have  little  connection  with  each 
other.  But  there  is  a wide  difference  between  archaic  times, 
when  legends  of  doughty  deeds  were  so  much  in  favour 
as  to  need  little  coherency  one  with  the  other,  and  the  com- 
paratively later  times  of  the  Parthenon,  when  the  Greek 
mind  had  become  more  critical,  demanding  at  every  turn 
cause,  origin,  or  association  of  ideas.  On  the  short  ends 
of  the  Parthenon,  each  with  only  fourteen  metopes,  we 
see  how  one  subject  could  be  divided  up  into  the  required 
number  of  detached  groups  with  no  artistic  bond  uniting 
them.  On  the  west  end  was  the  Amazonomachia,  and  on 
the  east  the  Gigantomachia.  In  these  instances  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  subject  must  have  been  easily  recognisable 
from  the  well-known  types  and  attributes  of  the  deities  as 
compared  with  the  giants.  The  Amazons  wearing  their 
peculiar  dress  and  mounted  on  horseback  could  be  equally 
well  distinguished  from  the  Greeks  fighting  on  foot.  But 
when  it  came  to  the  long  sides  of  the  Parthenon,  each  with 
its  thirty-two  metopes,  the  problem  assumed  proportions 
which  it  had  never  reached  before.  For  the  first  time  in 
art  a magnificent  effort  was  made  to  introduce  an  artistic 
centre  to  the  whole  series,  which  should  serve  obviously  as 
at  once  cause  and  effect.  The  archaic  idea  of  any  number 
of  separate  legendary  groups  collected  together  without  any 


64 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


association  except  as  legends  was  brought  to  an  end  by 
Pheidias  when  he  applied  to  it  the  rationalising  spirit  of  his 
day  on  the  Parthenon,  giving  to  the  whole  series  of  south 
metopes  an  artistic  unity  which  was  dependent  on  the  central 
group.  No  wonder  that  thereafter  we  see  little  of  metopes 
on  Greek  temples. 

We  may  now  examine  in  detail  the  Centaur  metopes 
which  have  survived  from  the  south  side  of  the  Parthenon. 
One  would  almost  have  expected  that  the  Centaurs  on  the 
left  would  have  rushed  uniformly  to  the  left,  those  on 
the  right  to  the  right.  But  the  sculptor’s  conception  of 
the  scene  appears  rather  to  have  been  that  of  a general 
scrimmage.  Accordingly,  when  we  look  at  the  series  as 
a whole,  they  seem  to  throw  themselves  into  pairs  set  back 
to  back  (i,  2),  or  face  to  face  (2,  3),  while  again  two 
groups  may  be  regarded  as  following  one  after  the  other 
(3,  4).  Nos.  4,  5 again  present  the  scheme  of  back  to 
back.  The  result  is  a sense  of  balance  and  harmony  in 
the  composition,  which  is  greatly  aided  by  the  several 
groups  being  kept  in  profile  as  far  as  possible,  while  at 
the  same  time  the  general  idea  of  a scrimmage  is  kept 
in  view  by  the  irregularity  with  which  the  confronting  and 
opposing  groups  follow  each  other. 

In  the  Centaur  groups  in  the  British  Museum  the  figures 
are  sculptured  in  very  high  relief.  In  some  parts  they  are 
entirely  severed  from  the  background.  There  are  certain 
marked  differences.  /For  instance,  most  of  the  metopes 
keep  the  forms  of  the  Centaur  and  Lapith,  though  they 
are  in  close  conflict,  as  separate  as  possible,  the  contours 
of  each  figure  showing  against  deep  shadow.  In  some 


DETAILED  EXAMINATION 


65 


instances  the  effect  seems  spotty  and  unpleasant  in  the 
diffused  light  of  the  Elgin  Room.  In  the  open  air,  for 
which  the  metopes  were  intended,  there  would  doubtless 
have  been  no  such  effect.  But  the  light  which  was  pro- 
bably good  for  these  particular  metopes  could  not  have 
been  equally  so  for  others  on  the  same  wall,  where  only 
the  outer  contours  of  the  group  show  against  deep  shadow, 
as  in  2.  Here  the  mass  of  the  group  is  as  high  in 
relief  as  in  the  other  metopes,  yet  within  the  general 
outline  of  the  group  there  is  a marked  avoidance  of 
strongly  rounded  forms.  The  Lapith  is  pressed  close  to 
the  Centaur  in  such  a manner  that  the  two  together 
convey  the  impression  of  a low  relief,  detachable  from  the 
background  and  brought  forward  in  a mass,  as  if  the 
intention  of  the  sculptor  had  been  to  get  rid  of  those 
strong  inner  shadows  which  characterise  the  other  metopes 
we  have  referred  to.  The  comparative  flatness  of  this  group 
is  the  more  noticeable  because  the  body  of  the  Centaur 
is  actually  kept  flatter  than  the  others  to  allow  the  legs  of 
the  Lapith  to  come  in  front  of  it ; while  again  the  head 
of  the  Centaur,  instead  of  being  set  against  deep  shadow, 
is  set  against  the  mantle  of  the  Lapith,  the  folds  of  which 
occupy  to  a large  extent  the  place  of  the  shadow.  But  as  a 
whole  it  is  like  a Greek  bronze  relief,  in  which  the  figures 
have  been  embossed  in  a separate  piece  and  then  soldered 
on  to  a flat  background.  In  such  bronze  reliefs  it  was 
necessary  to  keep  the  figures  as  close  and  compact  as 
possible  ; in  the  marble  it  was  not  so.  In  any  case,  we 
must  allow  that  a sculptor  who  had  to  produce  no  less  than 
twenty-three  metopes — each  with  exactly  the  same  subject  of 

K 


66 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


a combat  of  a Lapith  and  a Centaur,  no  more  and  no  less, 
and  all  visible  at  once — must  have  had  a hard  task  to  invent 
variety  in  his  groups.  Each  metope  was  of  exactly  the  same 
size,  and  separated  from  the  others  by  exactly  the  same 
space.  Since  Carrey’s  time  this  metope  has  lost  the  two 
nearer  legs  of  the  Centaur. 

Among  other  instances  of  this  same  spirit  of  avoiding 
strong  shadows  within  the  general  contour  we  may  notice 
8,  9,  and  29,  in  the  British  Museum,  10  in  Paris,  and 
12  in  Athens.  In  8 the  Lapith  is  being  forced  down 
to  the  ground  on  one  knee.  In  Carrey’s  drawing  the 
Lapith  still  has  his  head,  and  the  Centaur  his  human  body 
and  head.  But  observe  how  the  space  between  the  chest 
of  the  Centaur  and  the  body  of  the  Lapith,  where  or- 
dinarily there  would  be  a deep  mass  of  shadow,  is  filled 
in  by  soft  drapery,  with  folds  just  enough  marked  to 
indicate  a contrast  between  the  human  forms  of  both 
Lapith  and  Centaur.  In  this  metope  there  is  much  to 
admire  in  the  rendering  of  the  torso  of  the  Lapith  and 
his  bent  right  leg.  In  9 we  have  almost  the  same  effect, 
the  space  between  the  Centaur  and  the  Lapith  being 
occupied  by  drapery,  which  is  here  rather  more  strongly 
marked  in  its  folds,  and  is  employed  also,  as  we  see  behind 
the  Lapith,  to  cover  partially  the  upturned  vase  on  which 
he  has  fallen.  In  Carrey  both  heads  are  complete,  as  well 
as  the  left  arm  of  the  Centaur,  with  his  hand  seizing  the 
left  leg  of  the  Lapith  to  tip  him  over.  It  is  curious  to 
see  the  Lapith  falling  on  an  upturned  vase  before  the 
attack  of  the  Centaur.  It  is  not  a very  natural  position, 
but  it  gave  the  sculptor  an  opportunity  of  creating  a new 


DETAILED  EXAMINATION 


67 


and  somewhat  picturesque  motive.  No.  10  is  the  metope 
now  in  the  Louvre,  representing  a Centaur  rushing  off 
with  a Lapith  maiden.  The  equine  body  of  the  Centaur 
and  the  body  of  the  maiden  present  the  appearance  of 
low  relief  detached  as  a mass  from  the  background  to  the 
same  extent  as  the  equine  body  of  the  Centaur.  The  arm 
of  the  maiden  crossing  the  chest  of  the  Centaur  is,  in  fact, 
rendered  in  low  relief,  like  the  drapery  on  her  body  and 
between  her  and  the  Centaur.  Even  more  striking  in  this 
respect  is  12,  now  in  Athens,  in  which  the  Centaur  seizes 
a maiden,  grasping  her  with  his  right  foreleg  as  well  as 
with  his  arms.  Excepting  the  equine  body  of  the  Centaur, 
the  rest  of  this  metope  may  be  described  as  low  relief 
brought  forward  to  the  necessary  degree  of  projection.  It 
seems  beautiful  in  the  contrasts  of  nude  form,  as  in  the 
breast,  leg,  and  foot  of  the  maiden,  against  her  disordered 
yet  clearly  indicated  dress,  with  its  strongly  marked  folds. 
The  body  of  the  Centaur  is  modelled  on  the  surface  with 
great  care  and  minuteness,  and  therefore  has  not  the  full 
and  rounded  appearance  of  most  of  the  other  Centaurs. 
In  Carrey’s  drawing  the  Centaur  is  not  yet  headless.  In 
the  metope,  as  it  exists  now,  we  see  that  the  victim’s  dress 
is  thin  and  clings  in  fine  folds  to  her  person,  following 
the  movements  of  the  limbs.  Her  thick  himation  has 
almost  gone  to  the  winds.  We  see  traces  of  it  on  her 
left  arm,  where  she  is  trying  to  dislodge  the  Centaur’s  hand, 
and  again  floating  at  the  back  of  the  Centaur.  But  her  body 
is  closely  pressed  against  the  Centaur,  so  as  to  leave  no  room 
whatever  for  deep  shadows  within  the  general  contours  and 
to  produce  the  effect  of  a broad  surface  of  low  relief. 


68 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


In  i,  which  is  in  Athens,  we  have  a similar  effect,  with 
the  difference  that  it  is  here  a combat  of  a Lapith  and 
Centaur  at  very  close  quarters  indeed.  Here  again  drapery 
is  used  to  conceal  the  close  impact  of  the  two  bodies  and  to 
introduce  contrasts  between  the  entwined  legs  of  the  two 
combatants. 

Lastly  there  is  29,  in  which  the  Centaur  has  carried 
off  the  Lapith  maiden  to  a distance ; we  may  call  her 
the  first  victim.  The  Centaur  has  raised  her  in  his  arms  ; 
she  has  no  foothold  on  the  ground  like  her  sisters. 

These  are  the  most  striking  instances  of  the  mixture 
of  both  high  and  low  relief  in  the  Centaur  metopes ; but 
among  them  there  are  several  others  where  something  of 
the  same  kind  is  noticeable.  For  instance,  there  is  the 
grandly  composed  7,  in  which  the  sudden  impact  of  Lapith 
and  Centaur  produces  a nearly  pyramidal  group,  as  happens 
when  two  opposing  forces  crash  into  each  other  at  full 
speed.  Here  again  we  see  the  space  between  the  Lapith 
and  Centaur  occupied  with  drapery ; but  the  folds  are 
sharply  indicated,  and  the  effect  of  the  drapery  in  stopping 
out  the  dense  shadow  which  might  have  been  there  is 
less  marked  than  in  the  metopes  just  noticed.  In  Carrey’s 
drawing  the  Centaur’s  right  arm  is  complete,  his  hand 
clutching  the  right  arm  of  the  maiden. 

How  differently  drapery  may  be  treated  is  seen  in  27, 
which  is  generally  accepted  as  the  grandest  of  all  the  metopes 
of  the  Parthenon.  In  execution  it  far  surpasses  the  others. 
The  whole  figure  of  the  Lapith  stands  free  from  the  back- 
ground, except  in  two  small  places  where  his  left  leg  crosses 
the  crupper  of  the  Centaur  and  where  his  shoulder  is  not 


DETAILED  EXAMINATION 


69 


altogether  severed  from  the  background.  In  the  other 
metopes  there  are  numerous  places  where  limbs  are  partially 
detached  from  the  background,  but  there  is  no  instance 
which  can  at  all  compare  with  this  tour  de  force.  Both 
heads  existed  in  Carrey’s  time.  Here  the  mantle  of  the 
Lapith  is  made  to  stretch  behind  him  like  a curtain,  to  show 
off  his  fine  bodily  form.  The  folds  are  kept  in  low  relief 
close  to  the  background,  and  in  no  perceptible  degree  lessen 
the  amount  of  shadow  there,  but  only  break  it  up  by  their 
sharp  undulating  edges. 

The  ends  of  this  great  mantle  hang  over  each  arm  of  the 
Lapith.  At  the  next  moment  the  whole  will  have  fallen  to 
the  ground  in  a bundle,  and  the  spell  will  have  been  broken. 
The  sculptor  has  chosen  an  instantaneous  point  of  the  action 
at  which  this  immense  mantle  would  be  seen  at  its  best  as  an 
element  of  display,  and  doubtless  also  the  attitude  of  the 
Lapith  has  been  conceived  for  the  sake  of  display  and  an 
imposing  effect,  rather  than  to  indicate  a special  group  in  the 
legend.  The  left  hand  of  the  Lapith  has  got  a hold  of  the 
Centaur’s  head — we  can  see  parts  of  his  fingers — and  is 
dragging  it  towards  him  to  deal  it  an  effective  blow  from 
his  right  hand.  To  prevent  this,  the  Centaur  exerts  all  the 
might  of  his  left  hand,  which  is  thrown  up  to  dislodge  the 
Lapith’s  grasp,  while  the  right  hand  goes  round  his  back  for 
the  same  purpose,  almost  suggesting  that  the  Centaur’s 
hands  were  bound  behind  him,  which,  of  course,  was  not 
the  case.  This  is  one  of  the  metopes  where  the  Centaur  is 
plainly  getting  the  worst  of  it.  Why  the  instances  of  that 
sort  are  so  few  we  do  not  know.  But  it  is  a fact  that  the 
Centaurs  of  these  metopes  are  favourably  represented.  No 


7o 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


one  of  them  is  to  be  seen  stretched  dead  on  the  ground,  like 
the  Lapith  in  the  next  metope,  28,  with  his  opponent  passing 
over  him  triumphantly.  At  the  worst  the  Centaur  is  in  the 
grip  of  the  Lapith,  who  is  about  to  deal  a heavy  blow,  but 
in  no  case  is  the  blow  already  dealt.  There  is  no  indication 
of  any  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  Lapiths,  though  perhaps 
in  the  broken  condition  of  the  marbles  it  would  be  too  much 
to  say  that  there  had  not  been  any,  especially  as  two  of  the 
Lapiths  carry  shields  on  their  arms.  The  one  4,  and  the 
other  11,  are  now  known  only  from  Carrey.  Equally  the 
Centaurs  do  not  appear  to  have  carried  branches  of  trees, 
such  as  they  employed  for  weapons  ordinarily.  One  of  them 
is  driven  to  seize  on  a wine  jar  to  strike  his  opponent  with. 
It  was  a sudden  fray  which  had  arisen  at  a peaceful  wedding, 
where  neither  side  ought  to  have  been  armed,  and  this  was 
apparently  the  view  taken  of  it  by  the  sculptor  of  the 
Parthenon. 

In  these  respects  the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon  differ  very 
greatly  from  the  frieze  of  Phigaleia,  which  represents  the 
same  subject  by  a contemporary  artist — by  an  artist,  in  fact, 
who  had  taken  part  as  an  architect  in  the  building  of  the 
Parthenon.  One  slab  will  serve  as  an  illustration.  There 
is  no  delay  there  in  striking.  There  is  indeed  a brutality  in 
both  Centaur  and  Lapith  which  is  far  removed  from  the 
spirit  of  the  Parthenon  metopes.  We  see  also  there  how  a 
dead  Centaur  could  be  represented,  with  due  regard  to  his 
equine  and  human  forms.  He  could  not  have  been  thrown 
on  his  back  like  the  dead  Lapith  without  looking  ridiculous. 
He  had  to  fall  prone  to  the  ground,  with  his  arms  and  legs 
powerless,  and  the  panther’s  skin  which  had  been  wrapped 


DETAILED  EXAMINATION 


71 


round  his  shoulders  almost  grinning  at  what  has  happened — 
altogether  a pathetic  figure. 

In  the  metope  of  the  dead  Lapith,  28,  the  Centaur  also 
wears  a panther’s  skin  ; it  hangs  stretched  over  the  left  arm 
almost  defiantly  like  a banner.  That  display  of  it  may  be 
mere  accident,  for  the  panther’s  skin  was  a recognised 
article  of  dress  among  the  Centaurs  to  wrap  round  their 
human  shoulders.  In  one  of  the  frescoes  by  Polygnotos  at 
Delphi  a panther’s  skin  was  hung  up  over  the  door  of  the 
house  of  Antenor  in  Troy  to  indicate  to  the  Greeks  when 
they  entered  the  city  that  they  were  to  spare  that  house 
because  of  the  friendliness  of  its  owner  to  the  Greeks  on 
a former  occasion,  so  that  possibly  there  may  be  some 
symbolism  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Centaur  holds  forward 
the  panther’s  skin.  In  the  Parthenon  metopes  the  panther’s 
skin  only  occurs  here  and  in  three  more  instances ; that 
is  to  say,  in  3,  where  it  is  just  visible,  twisted  over  his  left 
arm,  and  in  5,  where  it  has  been  tied  round  the  neck  of  the 
Centaur,  and  has  floated  back  behind  him,  as  we  see  from 
traces  on  the  marble.  In  this  metope  the  Lapith,  originally 
in  combat  with  the  Centaur,  has  entirely  disappeared,  but  in 
Carrey’s  time  he  was  there  all  but  the  head.  In  30  there 
is  just  a bit  of  panther’s  skin  sketched  in  slightly  on  the 
background,  but  no  apparent  connection  with  the  Centaur. 

In  26  it  is  curious  to  observe  a slight  piece  of  drapery 
sketched  in  on  the  background  behind  the  legs  of  the 
Lapith,  but  having  at  present  no  visible  connection  with 
the  figure.  Possibly  the  right  hand  of  the  Lapith  had 
originally  held  the  end  of  this  diminutive  mantle.  There 
seems  to  be  a support  for  that  hand  still  projecting  on  the 


72 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


marble.  But  apart  from  this,  the  metope  is  finely  composed 
in  our  judgment.  We  must  admire  the  action  of  the  Lapith, 
with  his  left  foot  raised  and  planted  against  the  Centaur,  his 
left  arm  stretched  to  its  utmost  to  push  back  the  Centaur, 
who  has  raised  both  arms  to  strike  down  the  Lapith  with  the 
greatest  force  he  could  command.  It  is  an  even  contest. 
No  one  can  say  which  of  the  two  is  to  be  victor  ultimately. 
The  group  is  finely  spaced,  with  just  enough  contact  and  just 
enough  separation  to  produce  a well-balanced  effect  in  an 
artistic  sense,  no  less  than  a well-balanced  fight. 

In  6 the  Lapith  has  a mantle  sketched  in  on  the  back- 
ground behind  his  legs,  and  falling  from  his  left  shoulder. 
Obviously  his  legs  have  been  sculptured  quite  free  from  the 
background.  There  are  no  traces  of  them  on  the  folds  of 
the  mantle.  Otherwise  there  is  not  much  to  be  said  of  this 
metope  except  that  it  represents  in  an  almost  friendly  manner 
the  first  stage  of  an  encounter  which  was  bound  to  end  in 
excessive  violence.  In  every  conflict  there  must  be  similar 
initial  stages.  It  depends  on  the  sculptor  to  take  advantage 
of  them  or  not,  and  we  have  already  seen  that  the  sculptor  of 
the  Parthenon  was  inclined  to  avoid  as  far  as  possible  the 
brutalities  which  his  contemporary  Ictinos  indulged  in  on 
the  frieze  of  Phigaleia. 

The  last  three  metopes  of  the  series,  30,  31,  32,  are 
remarkable,  as  we  have  said,  for  the  accumulation  of  nude 
forms.  Only  in  one  of  them  is  there  a bit  of  drapery  to 
break  the  monotony.  For  some  reason  the  sculptor  had 
chosen  to  place  groups  of  that  nature  at  the  very  outer 
extreme  of  his  composition.  What  that  reason  was  it  is 
hard  to  guess.  But  let  us  note  each  group  in  passing.  In 


DETAILED  EXAMINATION 


73 


30  there  is  drapery  behind  the  Lapith,  one  end  of  it  still 
clinging  on  his  right  shoulder,  while  behind  the  Centaur  a 
panther’s  skin  is  faintly  sketched  in  on  the  background. 
The  Lapith  has  fallen  on  one  knee,  and  clutches  a stone 
with  his  left  hand  ; but  there  is  otherwise  not  much  indica- 
tion of  violence.  The  Centaur  merely  touches  the  Lapith  s 
head,  and  the  Lapith  merely  touches  the  ribs  of  the  Centaur. 
The  suggestion  of  the  artist  may  be  that  the  powers  of  the 
combatants  are  about  exhausted.  In  any  case,  the  group 
seems  finely  composed.  In  31  the  Centaur  is  trying  to 
choke  the  Lapith,  who  in  return  seizes  him  by  the  ear 
apparently.  That  again  does  not  seem  a deadly  encounter ; 
the  action  is  mild  comparatively.  The  Centaur  has  caught  up 
one  leg  of  the  Lapith  between  his  two  fore  legs,  and  between 
the  two  combatants  there  is  an  intertwining  of  legs  and  cross- 
ing of  arms  which  occupies  the  intervening  space  with  a 
more  curious  than  forcible  effect.  In  32  the  combatants  are 
closer  together.  The  legs  of  the  Centaur  and  his  left  arm 
pass  behind  the  Lapith  and  make  no  display.  Doubtless 
the  struggle  can  only  end  in  the  death  of  one  or  other,  but 
there  is  no  intensity  in  the  action.  Possibly,  therefore,  the 
artist’s  intention  in  these  last  three  metopes  was  to  suggest 
an  enfeebled  stage  of  the  fight. 

Towards  the  other  end  of  the  series  we  should  notice 
3,  as  hard  in  execution  and  ungainly  in  the  composition. 
The  Centaur’s  head  has  been  lost  since  Carrey’s  time.  No.  4 
is  a marked  contrast,  with  its  Lapith  falling  backward  and 
raising  his  shield  to  defend  himself  against  the  wine  vase 
which  the  Centaur  is  about  to  hurl  down.  That  is  one  of  the 
finely  composed  groups,  touching  in  its  sentiment,  because 

L 


74 


THE  SOUTH  METOPES 


after  all  the  Centaur  may  yet  withhold  the  crushing  blow. 
We  may  here  state  that  the  heads  of  these  two  figures  are 
now  in  Copenhagen,  whither  they  had  been  carried  off  by 
a Danish  officer  in  the  service  of  the  Venetians,  when  they 
bombarded  the  Parthenon  in  the  seventeenth  century.  The 
head  of  the  Centaur  is  of  the  mild,  purely  human  type  which 
we  find  in  several  other  metopes.  The  other  type,  which 
seems  to  have  been  equally  common,  exhibits  a human  head 
with  the  ears  of  a horse,  with  long,  loose  hair  and  beard 
and  staring  eyes.  No.  31  is  the  most  marked  example. 

As  regards  the  Lapiths,  the  heads  that  have  been  pre- 
served, as  in  30,  31,  indicate  a youth  with  short-cropped 
hair,  which  the  sculptor  has  left  merely  blocked  out  in  the 
marble.  But  in  4 the  head,  equally  youthful,  has  the  hair 
more  carefully  rendered,  and  even  wears  a diadem.  In 
size  the  Lapiths  vary  considerably,  as,  for  instance,  in 
26,  27,  where  the  latter  is  much  bigger  than  the  former. 
The  former  is,  indeed,  exceptionally  slight  in  build,  as  is 
also  the  Lapith  in  8.  As  a rule,  the  torso  is  short,  with 
carefully  marked  bodily  forms,  and  the  legs  long.  In  some 
instances  there  is,  perhaps,  excess  in  the  indication  of  the 
finer  forms  of  the  body.  But  the  excess,  if  any,  is  in  the 
number  of  these  minuter  forms,  not  at  all  in  their  being 
more  pronounced  than  they  should  be.  They  are  rendered 
in  the  lowest  possible  relief,  and  we  suppose  could  hardly 
have  been  visible  at  the  height  at  which  the  metopes  were 
placed.  Seen  closer  at  hand,  as  in  the  Elgin  Room,  this 
painstaking  exhibition  of  bodily  structure  is  not  without 
formality  and  conventionalism,  such  as  prevailed  in  the  age 
immediately  before  Pheidias.  Hence  it  has  been  suggested 


DETAILED  EXAMINATION 


75 


that  some,  at  least,  of  the  sculptors  of  the  metopes  had  been 
older  men  working  under  Pheidias,  who  had  not  been  able 
to  shake  off  the  traditions  of  minute  accuracy  in  which 
they  had  been  trained.  But  Pheidias  himself  had  been 
brought  up  in  those  traditions,  and  we  may  well  sup- 
pose that  part  of  his  scheme  in  these  south  metopes  was 
to  have  his  central  groups  of  heavily  draped  figures  con- 
trasted on  the  flanks  with  Centaur  groups  strongly  and 
sharply  defined  in  their  contours.  That  was  the  first 
consideration ; minute  accuracy  of  detail  was  secondary. 
Desirable  in  some  of  the  metopes,  it  could  be  exchanged 
in  others  with  a more  generalised  rendering  of  bodily  forms, 
as  in  fact  is  the  case.  Compare,  for  instance,  the  Lapith 
torso,  of  31,  32,  the  former  laboriously  rendered,  with  the 
result  that  it  looks  hard  and  formal ; the  other  generalised, 
with  the  result  that  it  looks  full  of  life.  The  metopes  of  the 
other  sides,  unfortunately  in  their  mostly  deplorable  condi- 
tion, appeal  less  to  our  artistic  sense  than  to  our  desire  to 
ascertain  the  subject  of  them  and  the  general  scheme  of  the 
sculptor.  To  these  considerations  we  now  proceed. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  METOPES  OF  THE  NORTH,  EAST,  AND 
WEST  SIDES 

OF  the  thirty-two  metopes  originally  on  the  north  side  of 
the  Parthenon,  only  eleven  are  now  recognisable — 
nine  remain  on  the  building  at  the  two  extreme  ends,  seven 
on  the  right  and  two  on  the  left.  With  so  enormous  a gap 
in  the  middle  it  may  seem  hazardous  to  offer  an  opinion  as 
to  what  had  been  the  subject  represented  in  the  whole  series. 
We  have  no  drawings  by  Carrey  from  the  missing  metopes 
to  help  us.  On  the  other  hand,  this  poor  array  of  existing 
metopes  is  supplemented  by  certain  drawings  made  in  1686 
for  D’Ortieres  by  a French  artist.  These  include  three  met- 
opes of  Centaurs  careering  along,  two  from  the  left  and  one 
from  the  right  (PI.  XII.,  Figs,  a , b,  c,  d ).  If  these  drawings 

and  the  statement  appended  to  them  are  correct,1  there  can 
be  no  question  but  that  there  had  been  a Centauromachia  on 
the  north  side  as  well  as  the  south.  It  does  not,  of  course, 
follow  that  the  whole  series  of  northern  metopes  had  been 
included  in  this  subject,  and  that,  therefore,  the  north  were 

1 Laborde,  Athcnes , ii.  p.  63,  note  43,  au  verso  du  feuillet  126  comprend  dix 
speaking  of  the  drawings  made  for  metopes  de  la  face  septentrionale  du 
D’Ortieres  in  the  Bibliotheque  Na-  Parthenon.” 
tionale,  Paris,  says : “ Le  dessin  fixe 

76 


GENERAL  SCHEME 


77 


in  substance  a duplicate  of  the  south  series.  But  we  may 
assume  thus  much  to  begin  with  on  the  analogy  of  the  two 
corresponding  long  sides  of  the  frieze  which,  as  we  shall  see, 
were  practically  duplicates.  From  the  evidence  of  the 
existing  metopes  and  from  the  Centaurs  in  D’Ortieres’ 
drawings,  we  argue  further  that  the  place  of  the  Centaurs 
had  been  inverted  in  the  north  series,  they  occupying  the 
centre,  while  the  marriage  party  occupied  the  two  ends.  On 
the  north  side  the  stormy  element  would  be  in  the  middle, 
and  the  placid  element  at  the  two  ends. 

Let  us  now  see  how  far  this  view  is  corroborated  by  the 
existing  metopes  of  the  north  side — that  is  to  say,  how  far 
they  represent  groups  of  Lapith  women  such  as  Carrey  drew 
in  the  middle  of  the  south  series.1  No.  i on  the  extreme 
left  represents  a biga  with  female  charioteer  (PI.  XII.),  pre- 
cisely as  metope  15  towards  the  middle  of  the  south  side. 
As  we  have  before  said,  the  presence  of  a chariot  in  the 
Centauromachia  is  attested  by  the  Phigaleian  frieze.  On 
the  north  side  25  (PI.  XII.),  with  two  women  beside  an  archaic 
image  or  xoanon , corresponds  to  21  on  the  south  with  two 
women  beside  a xoanon.  The  grouping  is  not  the  same 
in  both  instances.  Yet  in  each  case  one  of  the  women 
places  her  hand  on  the  head  of  the  image.  There  is  a 
similar  archaic  xoanon  in  the  Centauromachia  of  the 
Phigaleian  frieze,  with  one  woman  clasping  it  and  another 
turning  away.  Apparently  this  had  been  an  essential 
feature  of  the  legend.  Again,  in  the  north  metopes  we 

1 Michaelis,  Parthenon,  p.  138,  says  : rupted  the  order  of  the  other  represen- 

“ Probably  in  the  middle  were  a number  tations,  similarly  as  on  the  south  side 
of  Centaur  scenes  which  had  inter-  do  the  metopes  13-20  in  the  centre.” 


78  METOPES  OF  THE  NORTH,  EAST,  AND  WEST  SIDES 

have  three  separate  instances  of  a man  and  a woman,  he 
expressing  alarm  and  bent  on  protecting  her,  3,  27,  28. 
Answering  to  this,  we  have  in  the  south  metopes  a group  of 
a young  man  similarly  alarmed  beside  a young  woman  14, 
and  something  nearly  approaching  the  same  subject  in  13 
and  17. 

We  cannot,  of  course,  claim  that  the  whole  of  the  nine 
central  metopes  as  drawn  by  Carrey  on  the  south  side  re- 
appear at  the  ends  of  the  north  side,  as  we  might  expect. 
But  in  at  least  two  of  the  cases  of  identity  which  we  have 
pointed  out  it  will  be  allowed  that  the  subjects  represented 
are  remarkably  characteristic  of  a Centauromachia.  We 
are  not  obliged  to  assume  that  the  same  stage  of  the 
Centauromachia  was  presented  on  the  two  sides.  On  the 
contrary,  we  can  well  imagine  an  earlier  stage  of  the  incident 
on  the  north  side  than  on  the  south.  That  would  involve  a 
certain  number  of  differences  in  the  action  and  in  the 
grouping.  It  might  explain  why  there  are  more  groups 
consisting  of  a young  man  and  young  woman  in  the  north 
than  in  the  south  metopes.  Above  all,  it  gives  a reason  why 
the  three  Centaurs  drawn  for  D’Ortieres  have  no  Lapith 
opponents.  These  Centaurs  would  be  rushing  into  the  fray. 
In  a word,  our  argument  is  that  the  coincidences  between 
the  north  and  south  metopes  are  sufficient  to  justify  the 
opinion  that  the  same  subject  of  a Centauromachia  had 
covered  both,  but  that  the  scheme  of  arrangement  was  in  the 
one  case  an  inversion  of  the  other.  In  these  matters  no 
one  has  shown  greater  discrimination  than  Professor  Peter- 
sen, who  says1: — “If,  therefore,  on  both  long  sides  (north 

1 Kunst  des  Pheidias,  p.  230. 


GENERAL  SCHEME 


79 


and  south)  practically  the  same  subjects  were  represented, 
only  with  this  alteration,  that  greater  elaboration  was 
bestowed  now  on  the  one  side,  now  on  the  other,  the 
intention  could  only  have  been  to  convey  to  the  spectator 
of  either  side  the  idea  of  the  whole,  and  thus  spare  him 
the  necessity  of  going  round  to  the  other  side.  The  same 
intention  is  as  clear  as  possible  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
frieze.” 

We  are  bound  to  notice  here  a difficulty  presented  by  29 
(PI.  XII.)  of  the  north  side,  with  a horse  stumbling  forward 
apparently  the  rider  turned  right  round  on  his  back,  like 
one  of  the  Amazons  on  the  Mausoleum  frieze.  We  confess 
our  inability  to  reconcile  that  subject  with  the  battle  of 
Centaurs  and  Lapiths.  So  also  in  25  (PI.  XII.),  otherwise 
perfectly  consistent  with  a Centauromachia,  as  we  have 
pointed  out,  we  cannot  explain  the  presence  of  a diminutive 
winged  figure  above  the  shoulder  of  the  woman  on  the  left.1 
So  minute  a figure  can  hardly  be  Eros,  as  Michaelis2 3  confi- 
dently supposed.  It  is  more  like  a Shade  or  eidolon,  such 
as  we  see  on  Athenian  funeral  lekythi,  suggestive  of  death. 
Possibly  that  is  its  meaning  here  also. 

The  last  of  the  series  of  north  metopes  32  is  the  only 
one  which  has  been  well  preserved.  But  we  have  already 
described  it  in  some  detail  (PI.  XI.  p.  60),  and  will  now 


1 This  small  figure  had  been  over- 

looked till  Laborde  had  a cast  made  of 
it  and  drew  it  in  the  Revue  Archto- 
logique , 1845,  pp.  16,  17. 

3 Parthenon,  p.  139.  He  claims  that 
metopes  24  and  25  represent  a consecu- 
tive scene  from  the  Iliupersis,  the 
xoanon  being  the  image  of  Athene, 


the  two  women  beside  it  Helena  and 
Aphrodite,  accompanied  by  Eros,  the 
warrior  in  the  preceding  metope  24 
Menelaos.  The  Greek  vase  which  he 
reproduces  seems  to  him  to  confirm  his 
view.  But  there  are  too  many  women 
about  in  these  north  metopes  for  us  to 
admit  scehes  from  the  Trojan  war. 


80  METOPES  OF  THE  NORTH,  EAST,  AND  WEST  SIDES 

merely  add  that  the  position  of  the  woman  seated  high  on  a 
rock  would  be  quite  consistent  with  an  early  stage  of  the 
marriage  scene,  just  when  the  Centaurs  had  begun  their 
violence.  The  younger  woman  has  just  run  up  to  her  with 
the  news. 

EAST  METOPES 

[Plate  VI.] 

It  is  agreed  that  the  fourteen  metopes  on  the  east  or 
principal  front  of  the  Parthenon  represent  the  Giganto- 
machia,  and  even  now,  in  the  present  desperate  condition 
of  these  sculptures,  we  can  see,  or  fancy  we  see,  a fulness 
and  wealth  of  imagination  in  the  designing  of  the  several 
groups  appropriate  to  their  primary  position  on  the  temple. 
The  metopes  on  the  west  end  are  empty  in  comparison. 
We  would  gladly  linger  over  certain  of  the  east  metopes, 
where  even  in  ruin  the  artistic  conception  may  still  be 
recognised  as  beautiful ; for  example,  in  the  chariot  of 
winged  horses  7,  or  the  vigorous  action  in  6 and  9, 
but  the  present  state  of  the  sculptures  hardly  justifies  more 
than  a passing  notice.  Still  less  are  we  entitled  to  enter 
on  the  vexed  question  of  identifying  the  several  deities  in 
their  combats  with  the  giants.  There  is  not  sufficient 
material  to  judge  by.  It  will  be  enough  to  give  the  names 
that  seem  most  likely.  One  question,  however,  we  must 
stop  to  consider,  because  it  involves  a principle  of  an 
artistic  nature.  In  four  of  the  metopes  we  find  a chariot 
group  of  two  horses  and  a charioteer,  but  in  each  case 
there  is  no  combatant  as  we  expect.  He  must  be  some- 
where near.  On  all  analogy  he  should  be  in  front.  We 


GROUPS  OF  THE  METOPES 


81 


therefore  look  for  him  in  the  next  metope  in  front.  In 
effect  we  find  him  so  in  each  case.  Accordingly  we  have 
four  instances  in  which  two  contiguous  metopes  form 
one  group  as  regards  subject,  i.e.  5 and  6,  7 and  8, 
9 and  10,  13  and  14.  Two  of  the  bigae  move  from 
left  to  right,  and  two  in  the  opposite  direction,  so  that 
there  is  a certain  amount  of  balance  or  response  in  the 
action  of  the  whole  series,  though  not  anything  approaching 
the  formality  of  older  Greek  art.  The  horses  are  always 
beautifully  conceived,  and  form  a most  attractive  contrast 
to  the  semi-equine  Centaurs  on  the  long  sides. 

We  give  here  the  names  of  the  deities  which  seem  the 
most  likely  to  be  correct  P 1 Hermes  and  giant,  2 Dionysos 
and  giant,  3 Ares  and  giant,  4 Hera  and  giant,  5 chariot 
of  Zeus,  6 Zeus  slaying  giant,  7 chariot  of  Athene,  8 
Athene  slaying  giant,  9 Heracles  attacking  giant,  10  chariot 
of  Heracles,  11  Apollo  and  giant,  12  Artemis  and  giant, 
13  Poseidon  attacking  giant,  14  chariot  of  Poseidon. 

WEST  METOPES 

[Plate  III.] 

We  may  accept  without  question  that  the  fourteen  metopes 
on  the  west  or  secondary  front  of  the  Parthenon  represent 
the  Amazonomachia.  It  was  a subject  always  dear  to  Greek 
sculptors.  As  a subject,  it  had  no  beginning  nor  end,  and 
no  definite  number  of  figures.  The  series  of  combatants 
could  be  multiplied  or  curtailed  at  pleasure.  The  battle  of 
Greeks  and  Amazons  was  therefore  peculiarly  suitable  for 

1 Prof.  C.  Robert,  Arch.  Zeit.,  1884,  p.  47. 

M 


82  METOPES  OF  THE  NORTH,  EAST,  AND  WEST  SIDES 


a frieze  or  for  a series  of  metopes.  It  had  a special 
attraction  for  the  Athenians,  because  of  the  part  their  hero 
Theseus  had  taken  in  that  singular  enterprise  against  war- 
like women.  The  sculptor  was  free  to  introduce  as  many 
Amazons  on  horseback  as  he  chose,  and  in  the  Parthenon 
metopes  he  has  made  ample  use  of  that  freedom.  There 
were  at  least  six  mounted  Amazons,  possibly  more.  A 
favourite  artistic  motive  was  an  Amazon  riding  over  a 
fallen  Greek,  and  in  the  act  of  striking  down  at  him. 
The  body  of  the  Greek  admirably  fills  the  space  under 
the  horse,  and  at  the  same  time  the  action  of  the  group 
becomes  pathetic,  for  the  Greek  is  still  able  to  raise  himself 
somewhat  for  defence.  Thus  art  and  nature  go  hand  in 
hand.  Whether  or  not  that  particular  motive  had  been  the 
creation  of  Pheidias,  he  certainly  makes  the  most  of  it  in 
these  metopes.  It  recurs  at  least  five  times.  We  find  this 
motive  once  in  the  Phigaleian  frieze,  which  is  contemporary 
with  the  Parthenon,  and  once  in  the  Mausoleum  frieze, 
which  is  later.  In  metope  i there  is  no  Greek  combatant, 
but  only  a mounted  Amazon,  who  looks  as  if  she  had  been 
the  last  to  arrive  on  the  scene.  So  far  as  we  can  judge, 
the  metopes  of  the  west  front  alternate  between  combats 
on  foot  and  combats  on  horseback  in  regular  order,  the 
effect  of  the  whole  being  decidedly  more  formal  than  we 
expect  on  the  Parthenon.  Among  the  combatants  on  foot 
we  may  notice  14,  where  a Greek  assails  an  Amazon 
who  has  fallen  on  her  knees  before  him,  much  in  the  manner 
of  a group  at  the  left  end  of  the  Phigaleian  frieze. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  FRIEZE 

[Plate  XIII.] 

FROM  the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon,  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  were  sculptured  in  the  highest  possible 
relief,  we  must  be  prepared  for  an  abrupt  but  interesting 
change  to  the  frieze,  which,  being  placed  within  the  outer 
colonnade  of  the  temple,  and  therefore  illumined  only  by 
diffused,  indirect  light,  was  necessarily  sculptured  in  the 
lowest  possible  relief.  The  subject  also  changes  from  fierce 
conflict  and  alarm  in  the  metopes  to  peaceful  and  grave 
demeanour  in  the  frieze.  In  the  matter  of  artistic  compo- 
sition we  pass  from  the  isolated  groups  of  the  metopes  to  the 
uninterrupted  procession  of  the  frieze.  A poetic  narrative 
which  carries  us  along  by  its  charms  of  style  and  by  the 
skilful  distribution  of  its  parts,  is  what  the  frieze  may  be 
compared  to. 

The  metopes  on  any  one  side  of  the  Parthenon  could 
be  seen  from  a distance  and  all  at  once.  The  connection 
between  the  separate  groups  could  be  recognised  like  the 
recurring  measures  in  a lyric  poem  of  Pindar’s.  The  sculp- 
tures of  the  two  pediments  were  dramatic  in  their  intensity 
and  centralisation.  But  the  frieze  could  only  be  seen  slowly 
from  the  colonnade  itself.  The  subject  which  it  represented 

83 


84 


THE  FRIEZE 


could  only  be  recognised  gradually  as  the  visitor  passed  along, 
looking  up,  at  a very  sharp  angle.  In  these  circumstances 
it  would  no  doubt  have  been  more  convenient  for  the  visitor 
as  he  passed  if  the  subject  could  have  been  broken  up  into 
isolated  groups,  presenting  much  the  same  effect  as  we  find 
on  the  nearly  contemporary  temple  of  Zeus  at  Olympia, 
where  metopes  take  the  place  of  frieze  within  the  colonnade 
at  each  end.  But  on  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon  that  was 
impossible,  because  of  the  nature  of  the  subject — a public 
procession  of  ordinary  mortals  on  their  way  from  one  quarter 
of  Athens  to  the  Acropolis,  where  there  was  to  be  a mag- 
nificent sacrifice  to  the  gods,  with  much  ceremony,  such 
as  the  bestowing  of  prizes  on  the  athletes  who  had  been 
successful  in  the  Panathenaic  games  just  finished.  That 
was  the  subject  in  general  terms.  The  continuity  of  the 
procession  could  not  be  broken  up  to  oblige  visitors. 

As  we  have  already  indicated,  a visitor  reaching  the 
Parthenon  from  the  Propylaea  in  the  ordinary  way  saw  first 
the  west  frieze,  representing  that  section  of  the  proces- 
sion which  was  the  most  rapid  in  its  movement  and  was 
therefore  the  last  to  start,  viz.  the  last  of  the  young  men 
on  horseback.  It  is  altogether  a scene  of  preparation  and 
starting.  These  young  men  on  their  fiery  horses,  or  pre- 
paring to  mount,  will  soon  overtake  those  who  had  started 
before  them  on  foot,  carrying  vessels  for  sacrifice,  leading 
cows  and  sheep,  playing  music,  or  in  chariots,  like  heroes 
at  the  war  of  Troy.  As  we  have  previously  explained,  the 
difficulty  for  the  sculptor  was  how  to  get  this  continuous 
subject  on  to  a four-sided  building.  What  he  did  was  this  : 
He  placed  on  the  west  side,  which  was  the  part  first  visible 


SUBJECT 


85 


to  spectators,  the  start  of  the  last  section  of  the  procession. 
On  the  east  side,  which  was  the  actual  front  of  the  temple, 
he  placed  the  culminating  point,  where  the  gods  are  present 
to  witness  the  sacrifices.  But  on  the  two  long  sides  he 
represented  the  middle  part  of  the  procession  in  duplicate, 
so  that  a visitor  besfinnincr  at  the  west  end  could  choose 
whichever  of  the  two  long  sides  he  preferred  to  pass  round 
by,  and  in  either  case  be  able  to  follow  the  sculptured  pro- 
cession from  start  to  finish.  We  saw  much  the  same  prin- 
ciple of  duplication  employed  in  the  metopes  of  the  long 
sides.  We  do  not  mean  that  the  north  and  the  south 
friezes  are  strictly  duplicates  one  of  the  other,  but  the  various 
groups  or  sections  correspond  much  like  a procession  sketched 
from  two  sides.  If  we  imagine  the  procession  at  some  par- 
ticular stage  of  the  journey  dividing  into  two  halves,  the 
one  turning  to  the  right,  the  other  to  the  left,  each  half 
arriving  from  an  opposite  point  at  the  meeting-place,  we 
shall  be  able  to  realise  in  a measure  what  Pheidias  was 
compelled  to  do  to  get  his  procession  with  its  three  points 
of  start,  middle  and  head,  on  to  a four-sided  building. 
Imagine  the  two  long  sides  of  the  frieze  set  back  to  back, 
and  you  have  the  middle  of  the  procession  in  a solid  body, 
seen  from  both  sides  of  the  road.  The  long  sides  of  the 
frieze  are  full  of  movement,  and  in  most  places  crowded 
with  figures,  while  on  the  short  ends  there  is  less  action, 
on  the  east  almost  none  at  all ; instead  of  crowding,  there 
is  an  abundance  of  space  round  all  the  figures. 

The  total  length  of  the  frieze  was  over  522  feet  10 
inches.  Of  this  something  less  than  the  half,  240  feet 
6 inches,  was  brought  home  by  Lord  Elgin.  From  the 


86 


THE  FRIEZE 


west  frieze  he  removed  only  one  slab  and  a figure  close 
to  the  angle ; the  rest  of  it  remains  in  its  place  on  the 
building,  exposed  to  the  weather,  which  is  often  severe 
in  Athens  during  the  winter.  That  the  west  frieze  has 
suffered  greatly  on  this  account  is  plain  from  a com- 
parison of  the  plaster  casts  which  Lord  Elgin  had  made 
from  it  with  the  new  casts  made  some  years  ago  (1872). 
The  two  sets  of  casts  are  placed  side  by  side  in  the  Elgin 
Room,  so  that  it  is  easy  to  see  the  extent  of  the  damage 
done  within  a period  of  about  seventy  years.  Every  year 
seems  to  add  fresh  injury.  The  French  ambassador,  who 
was  Lord  Elgin’s  colleague  in  Constantinople,  carried  off 
a fine  slab  from  the  east  frieze — the  one  now  in  the  Louvre 
— representing  a group  of  the  girls  who  walked  close  to  the 
head  of  the  procession  (49-56).  At  the  same  time  he  sent 
to  Paris  a cast  of  the  slab  immediately  preceding  this  one. 
Very  fortunately  so,  because  that  slab  was  subsequently  much 
destroyed.  One  figure  of  an  old  man,  46,  was  chipped  off 
entirely  ; other  parts  were  broken  off  and  split  in  pieces. 
A large  piece  was  sent  home  by  Lord  Elgin ; a small 
fragment  has  been  found  on  the  Acropolis  of  Athens,  and 
another  in  the  Museum  of  Palermo  in  Sicily.  Possibly 
some  day  the  rest  may  be  recovered.  Meantime  we  are  able 
to  put  these  fragments  into  their  right  places  and  to  recon- 
struct the  slab  by  means  of  the  cast  in  Paris. 

These  things  happened  about  the  year  1800.  Since  then 
several  slabs  of  the  frieze,  more  or  less  perfect,  have  been 
found  buried  on  the  Acropolis.  They  had  fallen  from  their 
place  before  any  great  injury  had  been  done  to  them.  The 
best  preserved  is  a slab  from  the  east  frieze  containing  a 


PRESENT  CONDITION 


87 


group  of  seated  deities  (vi.).  Equally  well  preserved  is  part 
of  a chariot  group  from  the  north  frieze  (xvii.).  Casts  of 
these  and  of  many  smaller  pieces  which  have  been  recovered 
in  comparatively  recent  years  from  all  sorts  of  odd  places 
will  be  found  let  into  their  true  positions  among  the  original 
marbles  in  the  Museum,  as  shown  in  our  plate.  So  that  what 
with  originals  and  casts,  we  can  put  together  now  415  feet 
out  of  the  entire  522  feet,  leaving  about  107  feet  to  be 
accounted  for.  Of  this  fully  60  feet  is  known  from  drawings 
by  Carrey  and  Stuart,  while  47  feet  has  totally  disappeared. 
It  will  be  noticed  in  many  of  the  slabs  that  angle  pieces  have 
been  broken  off.  The  cause  of  this  was  the  excessively  fine 
joints  of  the  slabs,  which  allowed  of  no  play  when  the 
building  was  subjected  to  any  strain  as  during  the  gunpowder 
explosion  or  under  a slight  subsidence  of  the  foundations. 

The  frieze,  as  we  see  it  in  the  Elgin  Room,  has  two  dis- 
advantages. First,  it  is  there  illumined  by  light  from  the 
top  instead  of  from  below.  The  consequence  is  that  on  the 
west  side  of  the  room,  where  there  is  a long  cavalcade  of 
young  horsemen,  it  is  the  legs  of  the  horses  which  are  most 
conspicuous.  The  heads  of  the  horses  and  the  riders  are 
deprived  of  their  due  amount  of  shadow,  and  at  some 
hours  of  the  day  the  effect  is  disagreeable.  Another  dis- 
advantage arises  from  the  fact  that  the  frieze  being  placed 
nearly  on  the  level  of  the  eye  can  be  seen  broadside  on, 
so  to  speak,  instead  of  at  an  acute  angle  high  above  the 
level  of  the  eye.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  an  immense 
gain  in  being  able  to  study  every  detail  closely,  as  can  now 
be  done ; and  this  gain  does  far  more  than  counterbalance 
the  disadvantages  just  referred  to. 


88 


THE  FRIEZE 


But  these  remarks  on  the  present  condition  of  the  frieze 
do  not  affect  the  main  question  we  have  to  consider,  which 
is,  how  the  sculptor  conceived  and  represented  a procession 
through  the  streets  of  Athens  which  took  place  in  his  own 
lifetime  every  four  years.  The  people  of  Athens  knew  very 
well  what  the  actual  procession  was  like.  They  knew  that 
the  head  of  it  consisted  of  a ship  on  wheels,  bearing,  as  a 
sail,  a new  robe  intended  for  the  rude  wooden  image  of 
Athene  on  the  Acropolis.  The  new  robe1  had  just  been 
embroidered  by  a number  of  girls  chosen  from  the  well- 
to-do  families  of  Athens.  While  engaged  on  their  task  they 
had  to  live  within  the  precincts  of  the  Erechtheum  on  the 
Acropolis,  under  the  charge  of  the  priestess  of  Athene. 
When  the  robe  was  carried  through  the  streets,  spread  like 
a sail,  these  girls  walked  in  procession  behind  it,  and  are 
so  represented  on  the  east  frieze,  conventionally  separated 
into  two  groups,  as  if  approaching  the  meeting-place  of 
the  gods  from  both  sides.  Pheidias  has  omitted  the  ship 
on  wheels,  and  has  chosen  rather  the  culminating  act  in 
which  the  robe,  having  been  taken  down  from  the  ship  and 
duly  folded,  is  being  handed  up  to  the  priest  by  a boy. 
This  final  incident  he  has  placed  in  the  most  central  spot 
of  the  whole  frieze,  directly  above  the  great  doorway  of  the 
Parthenon.  The  ship  was  drawn  by  a crowd  of  men  pulling 
at  a rope  or  hawser,  we  are  told,  and  we  can  see  what  it 
may  have  looked  like  from  a painted  vase  in  the  Museum 
of  the  sixth  century  b.c.  with  a ship  on  wheels.  But  the 

1 The  robe  is  figured  on  the  Pan-  Museum  it  has  a border  of  figures, 
athenaic  vases  as  richly  embroidered.  which  do  not  appear  to  represent  a 
On  one  of  these  vases  in  the  British  Gigantomachia,  as  would  be  expected. 


THE  GODS  89 

idea  is  even  much  older  than  that.  It  occurs  as  a seal  on 
a Babylonian  tablet  as  old  as  the  seventh  century  b.c. 

EAST  FRIEZE 

The  Athenians  of  those  days  knew  that  the  cows  and 
sheep  which  were  being  led  along  in  the  procession  were 
to  be  sacrificed  in  honour  of  the  gods.  They  supposed  that 
the  gods  were  not  indifferent  in  such  matters,  but  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  many  of  the  Athenians  then  actually 
believed  that  the  deities  were  invisibly  present  at  this  great 
sacrifice.  Yet  that  is  the  view  which  the  sculptor  has  taken. 
He  has  introduced  into  the  frieze  two  groups  of  deities  (24-30 
and  36-42)  whom  he  means  us  to  understand  as  invisibly 
present  on  the  Acropolis  at  the  moment  when  the  priest  is 
receiving  the  new  robe.  They  would  remain  so  till  the  sweet- 
smelling sacrifice  which  they  loved  was  offered  to  them. 
We  are  familiar  in  older  Greek  bas-reliefs,  as  in  those  at 
Delphi,  with  this  artistic  convention  of  invisible  deities.  It  is 
conspicuous  also  on  the  frieze  of  the  Theseum,  which  is  only 
a very  little  older  than  the  Parthenon.  There  we  may 
see  a warrior  rushing  into  a group  of  seated  deities,  as 
unconscious  of  their  presence  as  was  one  of  Homer’s 
heroes  when  a deity  approached  him  wrapped  in  mist  or 
disguised. 

To  every  Athenian,  whatever  his  faith,  these  two  groups 
of  seated  figures  in  the  central  part  of  the  east  frieze  were 
manifestly  deities.  First  of  all,  they  are  the  only  seated 
figures  in  the  whole  frieze,  yet,  though  seated,  their  heads 
reach  as  high  in  the  frieze  as  the  mortals  who  are  standing 
beside  them.  They  are  therefore  exceptional  in  size  and 

N 


90 


THE  FRIEZE 


dignity.  There  are  but  two  figures  among  them  which  are 
not  seated,  and  they  are  remarkable  in  another  respect  also, 
for  they  both  have  wings  (28  and  42).  That  is  a final  and  con- 
clusive proof  that  these  two  figures  at  least  are  not  mortals. 
The  great  deities  did  not  have  wings,  and  did  not  need 
them  ; but  their  messengers — like  Victory,  Iris,  or  Eros — 
were  winged.  The  presence  of  two  such  figures  implies 
that  the  seated  groups  are  gods.  The  one,  28,  is  a winged 
girl  who  stands  close  beside  the  goddess  Hera,  and  is 
obviously  a divine  messenger,  such  as  Iris  or  Nike.  The 
other,  42,  on  the  extreme  right,  is  a winged  boy,  even  more 
obviously  the  god  of  love,  Eros,  leaning  idly  against  the 
knees  of  his  mother  Aphrodite  and  carrying  her  parasol 
open  over  his  head.  It  seems  odd  that  he  should  be 
holding  up  a parasol,  and  this  may  appear  contradictory 
to  the  theory  of  invisibility.  But  we  must  remember  that 
certain  accessories  were  necessary  for  the  identification  of 
certain  deities,  and  that  in  the  case  of  Aphrodite  the 
parasol  was  one  such  accessory.  That  she  allows  her  son 
to  hold  it,  and  at  the  same  time  directs  him  with  her  hand 
towards  the  approaching  procession,  is  a very  just  obser- 
vation of  mother  and  child.  Let  us  add  that  the  figure 
of  Eros  is  plainly  that  of  a young  boy.  We  may  bear 
this  in  mind  when  we  read  that  it  was  only  in  later  Greek 
art  that  he  took  this  very  youthful  form.  As  regards  the 
assembly  of  the  gods  generally,  we  must  remember  the 
passage  in  Homer  ( Iliad , i.  423),  where  the  gods  are  said 
to  have  gone  in  a body  to  a feast  among  the  “ blameless 
Ethiopians.”  Pheidias  may  very  well  have  had  that  passage 
in  his  mind. 


THE  GODS 


9i 


In  the  second  place,  these  seated  figures  are  recognisable 
as  deities  by  their  bearing  and  their  attributes.  Zeus,  30, 
the  chief  of  them,  is  distinguished  by  the  chair  or  throne  on 
which  he  is  seated.  He  alone  has  this  mark  of  dignity. 
His  form  and  attitude  are  those  of  an  exalted  being ; they 
separate  him  from  the  others.  Every  Athenian  would  know 
him  at  a glance.  On  his  right  sits  his  consort  Hera,  29. 
The  veil  over  the  back  of  her  head  shows  that  she  is  a 
wife.  Her  action  in  pulling  it  aside  means,  no  doubt,  that 
she  is  taking  a lively  interest  in  what  is  transpiring.  In 
Greek  art  a matron  usually  has  a girl  servant  beside  her  to 
attend  to  her  personal  wants ; that  is  the  function  of  the 
winged  girl  Iris  close  beside  Hera.  What  the  action  of 
the  left  hand  of  Iris  is  precisely,  we  do  not  know.  But 
she  clearly  shares  the  sudden  interest  which  has  made 
her  mistress  pull  aside  her  veil.  The  action  of  Iris  must 
mean  something-  of  that  kind.  But  now  we  must  notice 
a singular  thing.  The  great  triad  of  deities  was  Zeus, 
Hera,  and  Athene.  We  see  Zeus  and  Hera  side  by  side, 
but  Athene,  36,  is  separated  from  them  by  a group  of 
mortals — a priest  and  priestess  with  two  girl  attendants, 
receiving  the  new  robe  or  peplos  from  a boy.  But  the 
explanation  is  simple.  The  sculptor  had  to  show  that 
the  gods  were  invisibly  present  in  the  atmosphere  which 
surrounded  the  mortals  on  the  Acropolis,  and  he  could 
hardly  have  shown  that  better  than  by  interjecting  a 
group  of  mortals  among  the  deities,  appearing  to  separate 
a triad  which  was  believed  to  be  inseparable  in  assemblies 
of  the  deities.  Observe  that  Athene  does  not  wear  her 
helmet.  Even  her  aegis  is  not  on  her  breast,  but  lies 


92 


THE  FRIEZE 


crumpled  on  her  lap,  as  it  would  seem.  Still,  she  has 
held  a spear  in  her  right  hand — we  can  see  that  from 
the  holes  in  the  marble  for  its  attachment — if  the  action  of 
the  hand  were  not  alone  sufficient.  The  spear  had  been 
of  metal,  probably  gilt  bronze. 

Just  as  Athene  appears  without  her  helmet,  so  Hermes, 
24,  instead  of  wearing  his  characteristic  cap  or  petasos, 
holds  it  on  his  knee  ; in  fact,  all  the  gods  are  uncovered, 
and  probably  that  is  meant  to  illustrate  their  custom 
at  a feast.  Hephaestos,  37,  would  have  been  more  easily 
recognisable  if  he  had  worn  his  pointed  cap,  but  his 
attitude  of  leaning  on  a staff,  the  indication  of  his  club- 
foot, and  the  fact  of  his  sitting  beside  Athene  would  have 
made  him  easily  identifiable  to  an  Athenian.  If  the  figure 
clasping  his  hands  round  his  knee  is  Ares,  27,  the  god  of 
war,  as  he  is  thought  to  be,  we  are  not  surprised  that  he  is 
not  characterised  by  helmet,  cuirass,  and  shield.  The  gods 
were  here  not  only  invisible,  but  they  were  present  at  a 
festival  held  in  their  honour.  The  sculptor  had  therefore 
a doubly  difficult  task.  He  had  to  respect  the  invisibility 
of  the  deities,  and  at  the  same  time  he  had  to  dispense 
as  far  as  possible  with  the  accessories  or  symbols  character- 
istic of  each.  One  of  the  consequences  is  that  with  regard 
to  several  of  these  figures  there  is  much  uncertainty  as  to 
who  they  are.  We  recognise  Zeus,  Hera,  and  Iris,  Demeter, 
Persephone,  or  Artemis,  with  her  torch,  26,  and  Hermes  in 
the  left  group — Athene,  Hephaestos,  Poseidon,  38,  Aphrodite, 
41,  and  Eros  in  the  right  group;  we  are  not  sure  about 
the  rest.  But  that  they  are  the  twelve  gods,  six  in  each 
group,  is  absolutely  plain. 


OFFICIALS 


93 


The  men  standing  apparently  in  two  groups  at  each  ex- 
treme of  the  gods,  18-23  and  43-52,  represent  several  classes 
of  officials  who  were  bound  to  be  present  on  the  Acropolis  to 
receive  the  procession,  to  superintend  the  sacrifice  and  the 
giving  of  the  prizes  which  had  been  won  in  the  games  just 
concluded.  They  do  not  present  an  even  number  in  each 
group.  At  first  sight  there  seem  to  be  six  on  each  side, 
but  looking  closer  we  find  an  additional  two  on  the  right, 
mixed  up  more  or  less  with  the  approaching  group  of  girls. 
There  are  no  two  men  similarly  disposed  in  the  group  on 
the  left ; but  a knot  of  men  standing  promiscuously,  and 
waiting  perhaps  eagerly  the  approach  of  the  procession,  would 
not  naturally  break  up  into  symmetrical  groups.  In  theory 
they  are  only  one  group,  and  we  think  that  this  very  irregu- 
larity confirms  the  theory.  It  is  different  with  the  girls  ; they 
walked  in  the  regular  order  becoming  to  a solemn  procession. 
The  group  at  one  end  ought  to  balance  the  other,  marching 
close  together  with  quiet  demeanour  and  carrying  vessels  for 
the  sacrifice.  Such  is,  in  fact,  their  general  aspect,  but  with 
infinite  differences  of  detail.  The  group  on  the  right  con- 
sisted of  thirteen  figures,  of  which  the  two  at  the  end  are  lost 
and  known  only  from  drawings  (PI.  XVII.,  Fig.  5) ; that  on 
the  left  of  fifteen.  If  we  follow  these  figures  one  by  one,  we 
shall  find  under  an  apparent  uniformity  an  extraordinary 
fertility  of  invention  in  the  variety  of  details,  and  that  is  one 
of  the  striking  characteristics  of  Greek  art  in  the  best  age. 
With  all  their  gifts  of  imagination,  the  Greek  artists  kept 
continually  returning  to  favourite  types  or  conceptions  of 
their  own  day,  as  if  trying  to  exhaust  every  possibility  of 
them.  But  let  us  add,  as  regards  the  two  groups  of  maidens, 


94 


THE  FRIEZE 


that  their  position  at  each  extreme  of  the  east  frieze,  with 
their  masses  of  vertical  lines,  and  the  girlishness  of  their 
proportions  as  compared  with  the  men  and  the  gods,  pro- 
duces a singularly  happy  effect  in  closing  in  the  whole 
scene  ; and  if  this,  as  a mere  matter  of  composition,  appeals 
to  the  artistic  sense,  was  it  not  also  a beautiful  idea  of  the 
sculptor’s  to  admit  these  young  girls  into  the  presence  of  the 
gods,  so  to  speak,  reserving  the  rest  of  the  procession  for  the 
other  sides  of  the  frieze,  with  its  commotion  and  its  more 
pronounced  suggestions  of  ordinary  daily  life  ? 

Having  thus  made  a rapid  review  of  the  east  frieze  as  the 
climax  of  the  procession,  we  shall  now  do  best  to  pass  round 
to  the  west,  where  the  last  section — the  end  of  the  cavalcade 
— is  starting,  or  preparing  to  start.  In  this  manner  we  shall 
be  able  to  follow  the  procession  not  only  as  was  most  natural 
for  a visitor  to  the  Acropolis,  but  also  as  the  sculptor  wished 
us  to  follow  it.  With  few  exceptions  the  movement  of  the 
west  frieze  is  towards  the  north  angle.  As  we  have  already 
said,  that  was  the  natural  direction  for  visitors  to  take. 
Ordinarily  they  wTould  turn  round  the  north  angle  of  the 
colonnade  and  pass  along  under  the  north  frieze.  We  must 
imagine  ourselves  taking  that  course.  But  even  if  we  prefer 
turning  round  the  south  angle  and  passing  along  under  the 
south  frieze,  we  shall  equally  find  that  the  sculptor  in  many 
instances  has  been  at  pains  to  represent  his  horses  and  riders, 
especially  the  horses,  with  their  chests  turned  round  partially 
to  the  front,  as  if  to  meet  the  eye  of  a visitor  who  is  following 
up  the  procession  from  behind,  observing  first  the  flanks  of 
the  horses  and  afterwards  their  chests  and  heads.  Their 
heads  are  mostly  in  profile,  with  a sharp,  deep  incision, 


THE  PROCESSION 


95 


which,  as  has  been  well  pointed  out,1  looks  ungainly  if  we 
approach  the  frieze  from  the  opposite  direction.  It  will  be 
observed  also  that  the  chests  of  the  horses  often  reach  the 
highest  relief  possible  in  the  circumstances,  and  present  to 
anyone  following  them  the  appearance  of  a billowy  movement 
which  helps  to  carry  us  on  gently  but  surely. 

The  first  group  of  horsemen  we  see  on  turning  the  north 
angle  is  still  in  a state  of  preparation,  but  beyond  that  the 
cavalcade  breaks  into  speed,  and  so  goes  on  till  it  reaches 
the  chariots,  of  which  there  appear  to  have  been  nine,  and 
forming  a conspicuous  feature  midway  along  the  frieze.  It 
was  just  there  that  the  greatest  damage  was  done  by  the 
gunpowder  explosion  which  blew  out  the  centre  of  the  cella 
walls.  From  the  fragmentary  chariot  slabs  that  remain, 
aided  by  Carrey’s  drawings  of  those  that  have  been  de- 
stroyed, we  can  in  a measure  see  how  this  striking  series  of 
chariots  in  the  very  centre  of  each  long  side  must  have 
provided  the  most  attractive  feature  of  all.  The  large  and 
simple  forms  of  the  horses,  together  with  the  greater  space 
around  them,  would  supply  an  element  of  repose  to  the  eye 
of  the  spectator,  while  yet  the  fiery  action  of  the  horses  and 
the  energy  of  the  apobatae  would  carry  on  the  general 
movement  of  the  procession. 

The  first  chariot  we  come  to  on  the  north  side  is  standing- 
still  (xxiii.).  After  that  the  chariots  also  dash  forward,  till  the 
foremost  (xi.)  of  them  is  violently  pulled  up  beside  the  group 
of  bearded  representatives  of  a fine  manhood  ( evavSpla ).  We 
next  overtake  in  order  youths  playing  on  lyres  and  on  flutes, 
others  carrying  jars  (hydriae)  and  trays,  then  boys  leading 
1 W.  Watkiss  Lloyd,  Trans.  R.  Soc.  Lit .,  xvi.  (1893). 


96 


THE  FRIEZE 


sheep  and  cows  for  the  great  sacrifice.  At  this  point  we  reach 
the  north  or  south  angle,  as  we  choose,  and  find  on  the  east 
side  a quite  new  element  of  the  procession — a string  of  young 
girls,  the  Ergastinae  as  they  were  called,  who  had  been  chosen 
to  weave  and  embroider  the  new  peplos  for  the  image  of 
Athene,  and  who  now  were  allowed  to  walk  in  the  procession1 * * * * 
behind  the  peplos,  carrying  some  of  them  vessels  for  the 
sacrifice,  others  an  object  which  has  been  a source  of  per- 
plexity, and  to  present  a silver  cup  to  the  goddess. 

It  may  be  asked,  Why  was  this  bringing  of  the  new  peplos 
associated  with  so  apparently  different  a scene  as  the  bestow- 
ing of  prizes  after  the  Panathenaic  games  ? We  can  only 
suppose  that  the  games,  the  culminating  procession,  and  the 
great  sacrifice  to  the  gods  had  been  founded  in  connection 
with  the  new  peplos.  The  fact  that  the  peplos  was  conveyed 
through  the  streets  spread  like  a sail  on  a ship  must  have 
had  its  own  significance,  though  we  cannot  pretend  to 
fathom  it.  We  can  imagine  the  scene  as  a theoxenia  or 
entertainment  of  the  gods  on  a grand  scale,  and  may  even 
suppose  that  the  peplos  had  been  hung  spread  out  on  the 
Acropolis  before  being  placed  on  the  image  of  Athene,  like 
the  curtain  displayed  in  the  visit  of  Dionysos  to  Icarios,  as 
seen  in  the  bas-relief  in  the  British  Museum. 

We  may  now  consider  certain  matters  of  detail.  In 


1 Hesychius  gives,  cpyacrrlvai ■ at  rov 
TTtirXov  vcf>aivov(ra.i..  See  also  the 

restoration  of  several  fragments  of 

inscriptions  referring  to  them  in  the 

Bull.  Corr.  Hell.  xiii.  p.  170:  ol 

7rar[€p€s]  tu>v  Trapdeviov  [raiv  ypy\ 

arrptv  wv  ttj  Adyvq.  ra  ep  ta  ra 


[ei’s  to] v 7r«rAov  kpfyav'itovcri  . . . 
ireTropTrev^Kevai  Ka]ra  ra  irpo<rre- 
raypeva  u>s  oti  K[dAAtcr]ra  /cat  evcr^jj- 
/xovejVrara.  k]  areaKevaKevai  8e  avras 
€k[toh'  iJSfwv  kcu  <fnd\r)[v  dpyvpa]v  airo 
Sp[a]x/xaii/  *KaTw  ty  icai  [^ovAtJcr^ai 
avadel^vai  ry  ’Adrjvy.  viro^pvypa  kt A. 


BOYS 


97 


the  first  place,  there  are  no  women  in  the  whole  pro- 
cession except  on  the  east  frieze,  and  these,  as  we  have 
seen,  are  mere  girls.  In  the  second  place,  there  is  through- 
out the  frieze  a large  proportion  of  young  men  and  boys. 
There  are  old  and  bearded  men  among  the  officials  standing 
waiting  on  the  Acropolis.  Here  and  there  we  see  a bearded 
man  on  horseback,  and  there  was  of  course  a special  section 
of  the  procession  which  consisted  of  bearded  men  (N.  28-43 
and  S.  84-105)  chosen  as  representatives  of  manhood  ( evavSpla ). 
But  otherwise  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon  may  be  called  a 
glorification  of  youth.  The  boy  who  brings  the  folded  peplos, 
35,  and  holds  it  up  to  the  priest  reminds  one  of  the  legendary 
boy  Ion,  when  a ministrant  at  the  temple  of  Delphi,  where 
Euripides1  describes  him  as  bringing  forth  embroidered  curtains 
from  the  Treasury.  It  is  sometimes  a question  whether  this 
boy  is  in  the  act  of  giving  or  receiving  the  peplos.  But  observe 
that  one  corner  of  the  robe  is  tightly  pressed  between  his 
left  elbow  and  his  side.  Such  a movement  seems  to  be 
not  only  natural  in  giving  up  the  peplos,  but  distinctly 
and  intentionally  expressive  of  that  action.  It  would  not 
be  in  the  least  natural  if  the  boy  were  receiving  the  peplos 
from  the  priest. 

We  may  here  compare  the  figure  of  a boy  at  one  of  the 
angles  of  the  north  frieze,  134.  He  is  standing  behind  his 
young  master,  whose  girdle  he  appears  to  be  fastening.  The 
young  man  is  pulling  down  with  both  hands  the  skirt  of  his 
chiton,  as  he  would  naturally  do  just  after  the  girdle  had 

x Ion,  1141.  These  curtains  formed  a of  barbarian  tapestries,  representing 
tent,  on  the  roof  of  which  was  woven  ships  at  war  with  Greeks,  fantastic  crea- 
or  embroidered  a picture  of  the  starry  tures  composed  of  men  and  animals, 
heavens,  while  the  walls  were  formed  wild  horses,  lions,  deer,  and  goats. 


O 


98 


THE  FRIEZE 


been  tightened.  The  boy  is  eagerly  bent  in  doing  something. 
Both  his  hands,  so  far  as  they  can  be  seen,  are  partially 
clasped  together,  the  fingers  of  the  right  hand  being  visible 
under  the  left.  That  is  hardly  so  explicit  an  indication  of 
the  act  of  fastening  the  girdle  as  could  be  wished,  but  it  is 
intelligible  if  the  fastening  had  just  been  completed.  An 
alternative  which  has  been  proposed  lately  is  that  the 
boy  is  holding  the  reins  of  his  master’s  horse.  He  is  too 
eager  and  earnest  for  that,  and,  besides,  the  reins  would 
surely  be  very  long  for  a riding  horse.  On  the  marble 
there  are  holes  on  the  horse’s  head  to  show  that  it  had 
once  had  a metal  bridle,  and  a drill-hole  on  the  neck 
where  metal  reins  had  been  attached.  Apparently  the  reins 
had  been  left  to  hang  loose  on  the  neck  of  the  horse.  We 
should  mention  here  that  throughout  the  frieze  there  are 
many  similar  proofs  of  metal  bridles  and  reins,  occasionally 
also  of  metal  wreaths  on  the  heads  of  riders  and  others. 
Most  probably  it  was  bronze  gilt  that  was  employed. 

But  to  return  to  the  boys.  The  one  fastening  the  girdle 
wears  only  a slight  mantle  doubled  over  his  shoulders,  which 
has  been  cut  sharply  down  at  the  back,  so  as  not  to  interfere 
with  the  angle  line  of  the  frieze  behind  him  ; the  one  holding 
up  the  peplos  has  a more  ample  mantle.  Yet  both  boys 
stand  in  the  same  attitude,  with  the  right  foot  thrown  back 
a little,  presenting  the  same  outline  down  the  back.  We 
may  say  that  they  represent  the  same  type,  each  performing 
an  act  of  personal  service.  On  the  west  frieze  there  are 
other  two  boys,  6 and  24,  and  they  also  may  be  described  as 
personal  attendants.  One  of  them,  24,  so  far  as  the  figure 
has  been  preserved,  bears  a considerable  likeness  to  the  boy 


BOYS 


99 


fastening  the  girdle,  with  his  serious  pose  of  head,  and 
the  hand  pointing  to  something.  But  the  other  boy,  6,  is 
quite  different.  He  is  entirely  nude,  and,  so  far,  is  unique 
in  the  whole  frieze,  if  we  except  the  youthful  god  Eros. 
His  attitude  also  is  unusual,  standing  with  one  leg  crossed 
over  the  other,  and  holding  his  hands  in  a singular  manner. 
It  has  been  suggested  that  he  is  meant  to  be  holding  the 
reins  of  his  master’s  horse,  and  that  does  not  seem  alto- 
gether improbable,  except  that  the  reins  would  be  too  long 
for  a riding  horse,  as  we  said  before.  But  his  easy  attitude 
is  the  more  curious  because  of  the  energetic  stride  which 
the  marshal,  5,  is  making,  with  his  right  hand  advanced  as  if 
to  seize  the  bridle  reins.  He  looks  almost  as  if  he  were 
chiding  the  boy.  The  action  of  his  legs  is  ungainly,  if  one 
may  say  so.  The  boy  is  youthful  enough  in  appearance, 
yet  his  proportions  have  been  greatly  exaggerated  by  the 
sculptor.  Later  on  we  shall  see  other  examples  of  a similar 
exaggeration,  and  consider  the  reason  of  them. 

It  is  difficult  to  explain  the  figure  standing  at  the  head 
of  this  horse,  4.  He  has  often  been  supposed  to  be  putting 
the  bit  into  the  horse’s  mouth.  But  that  is  impossible, 
because  both  his  hands  are  sufficiently  preserved  to  show 
that  they  were  turned  away  from  the  horse’s  head,  and  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  horse.  At  the  same  time 
it  looks  very  awkward  to  see  two  hands  raised  close  to  the 
mouth  of  a horse,  which  obviously  is  in  need  of  being 
checked  in  some  way,  while  yet  these  hands  are  in  no 
manner  occupied  with  him.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
man  is  clasping  with  both  hands  and  resting  on  an  upright 
rod,  which  had  once  existed  in  metal,  at  the  same  time 


lOO 


THE  FRIEZE 


turning  his  head  to  another  part  of  the  procession.1  That 
seems  to  be  a reasonable  view,  much  more  so  than  a recent 
suggestion  to  the  effect  that  he  is  tying  a diadem  round  his 
head. 

Another  class  of  boys  on  the  frieze  are  those  who  are  lead- 
ing cows  and  sheep  to  the  sacrifice,  or  bringing  vessels  with 
water,  or  playing  on  flutes  and  lyres  (N.  1-28  and  S.  106-131). 
A musical  accompaniment  has  at  all  times  been  necessary  in 
processions,  as  we  know  by  experience.  Part  of  the  educa- 
tion of  boys  was  to  learn  to  play  on  the  lyre  and  flute. 
It  was  therefore  right  and  proper  that  the  music  in  this 
instance  should  be  provided  by  them.  As  regards  the 
hydrophori,  or  boys  carrying  water-vessels,  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  think  of  girls  doing  that  rather  than  boys.  It 
is  women  and  girls  who  draw  and  carry  water  on  the  old 
Greek  painted  vases,  as  it  is  in  Greece  and  Egypt  at  the 
present  day.  We  do  not  know  why  boys  were  chosen  in  the 
Panathenaic  procession. 

The  slab  of  water-bearers  (N.  16-19)  has  been  well  pre- 
served fortunately  in  Athens,  and  we  are  thus  enabled  to 
admire  almost  to  the  full  the  charm  which  the  sculptor  has 
infused  into  the  action  and  drapery.  It  is  an  action  which 
involves  every  limb  of  the  body,  and  was  therefore  calculated 
to  produce  a fine  scheme  of  folds,  were  the  boys  provided 
with  ample  mantles  as  they  are.  The  effect  seems  beautiful. 
Singularly  beautiful  also,  to  our  mind,  is  the  boy  stooping 
eagerly  and  in  haste  to  raise  his  hydria.  Docile  creatures 
like  cows  and  sheep  may  easily  be  led  or  driven  by  boys, 

1 See  the  figure  of  a Thracian  listening  to  Orpheus  on  a vase  from  Gela,  in 
Roscher’s  Lexikon,  s.v.  Orpheus , p.  1179. 


BOYS 


iox 


and  in  the  group  of  boys  and  sheep  (iv.)  the  association  of  the 
two  is  quite  natural.  It  is,  in  fact,  a true  and  at  the  same 
time  a poetic  observation  of  nature  to  place  the  boy’s  hand 
gently  on  the  back  of  the  sheep  as  if  no  more  guidance 
were  needed. 

The  boys  leading  cows  (i.-iii.)  are  a little  taller  and  possibly 
a year  or  two  older,  but  even  then  their  figures  are  young  and 
slight  compared  with  the  massive  build  of  the  cows.  We 
know  very  well  that  a young  boy  may  easily  lead  a cow. 
Even  when  she  throws  up  her  head  as  if  exerting  great 
force,  a boy  putting  his  strength  to  the  rope  will  hold  her  in. 
Such  things  may  be  verified  any  day.  It  is  a true  and  just 
observation  of  daily  life.  More  than  that,  it  is  one  of  those 
revelations  of  Nature  where  she  delights  in  making  a huge 
or  even  a ferocious  animal  obey  a child.  These  thoughts 
arise  when  we  look  on  these  animals  being  thus  led  to 
sacrifice,  and  we  feel  sure  the  sculptor  meant  to  awaken 
thoughts  of  that  kind,  whatever  the  actual  facts  of  the  pro- 
cession may  have  been. 

We  have  yet  another  set  of  boys  to  consider — those  who 
were  employed  to  drive  the  chariots  in  the  procession.  In 
a public  race  it  was  no  easy  task  to  drive  a chariot  of  four 
fiery  horses,  and  even  in  the  procession  through  the  streets 
of  Athens  it  must  have  been  difficult,  but  we  find  on  the 
frieze  that  certain  precautions  were  taken.  That  is  to  say, 
each  chariot  is  accompanied  by  a man  on  foot,  whose  duty 
was  to  keep  the  horses  in  check  when  necessary.  In  a 
splendid  fragment  in  Athens  we  see  him  at  the  heads  of  the 
horses,  straining  every  effort  to  arrest  their  pace  (N.  44). 
Nothing  could  be  finer  than  the  impact  of  human  against  equine 


102 


THE  FRIEZE 


strength,  nor,  merely  as  a piece  of  harmonious  composition  of 
line  and  form,  could  anything  more  beautiful  be  desired. 
Let  us  take  as  an  example  of  boy  drivers  slab  xii.  of  the 
north  frieze,  where  he  is  almost  falling  backwards.  He  is 
dressed  as  a girl.  Such  was  the  custom  among  the  Greeks, 
strange  as  it  may  appear  to  us. 

We  have  still  to  notice  the  two  girls  in  the  very  centre  of 
the  east  frieze,  31-32,  each  carrying  on  her  head  a four- 
legged seat,  and  bringing  it  to  the  priestess  of  Athene,  Polias, 
who  is  in  the  act  of  receiving  the  seat  carried  by  the  elder 
and  taller  of  the  two.  Thus,  while  the  priest,  34,  is  receiving 
the  new  robe,  the  priestess  close  beside  him  is  receiving- 
two  seats.  Both  acts  ought  to  be  of  co-ordinate  importance 
or  nearly  so,  seeing  that  they  are  placed  in  close  juxta- 
position in  the  most  central  part  of  the  frieze.  These 
two  girls  are  obviously  the  well-known  attendants  of  the 
priestess,  who  bore  respectively  the  titles  of  Cosmo  and 
Trapezo.  They  have  small  cushions  on  their  heads  to  ease 
the  weight  of  the  seat.  But  for  whom  were  these  seats 
intended?  That  is  a question  which  has  given  some  trouble. 
At  first  sight  one  would  suppose  for  the  priest  and  priestess. 
It  may  have  been  so.  It  has  often  been  thought  so.  But 
a reasonable  objection  has  been  raised  that  the  priest 
and  priestess  when  seated  would  have  appeared  co-ordinate 
with  the  deities  on  either  side.  To  meet  this  difficulty 
it  has  been  suggested  that  the  two  seats  were  being  brought 
forth  from  the  temple  to  be  taken  possession  of  by  invisible 
deities.  That  would  be  quite  consistent  with  what  we  know 
of  religious  rites  among  the  Greeks.  When  the  visit  of  a 
god  was  expected  or  desired,  an  empty  couch  was  prepared 


BOYS  AND  GIRLS 


103 


for  him.  It  is  supposed  that  the  two  girls  had  previously 
brought  forward  the  twelve  seats  on  which  the  gods  are 
sitting,  and  that  they  are  here  represented  in  some  con- 
cluding act  of  the  same  kind.  It  is  there  assumed  that 
the  deities  are  inside  the  temple  seated  on  seats  which  had 
been  placed  there  for  them.  That  is  by  no  means  a new  idea. 
But  deities  seated  inside  a temple  could  hardly  be  expected 
to  exhibit  so  much  animation  and  interest  in  the  approach- 
ing procession  as  they  do  on  the  frieze.  Aphrodite,  41,  points 
energetically  to  it.  The  goddess  behind  her  pulls  up  her 
right  hand.  Dionysos  (?)  raises  his  left  hand,  39.  Poseidon 
also  raises  his  left,  38.  Hephaestos,  37,  turns  eagerly  to 
Athene,  who  remains  placid,  as  does  Zeus,  30.  But  Hera,  29, 
beside  him  is  excited,  pulling  aside  her  veil  with  both  hands. 
There  is  not,  perhaps,  so  much  animation  in  the  deities  beyond 
her,  but  there  is  some.  And  the  presence  of  deities  among 
mortals  to  whom  they  are  invisible  needs  no  proof  now. 

From  these  remarks,  so  far  as  they  have  dealt  with  the 
mere  boys  and  girls  who  appear  in  the  procession,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  multitude  of  youthful  horsemen,  we  return  to 
our  opinion  that  the  whole  frieze  is  a glorification  of  youth. 
But  why  so  ? So  far  as  the  festival  was  in  honour  of  Athene 
we  can  understand  this  preponderance  of  youth.  She  her- 
self was  always  youthful.  But  the  sacrifice  at  least  was 
offered  to  the  whole  of  the  twelve  great  deities  as  we  see, 
and  they  as  a body  had  no  special  interest  in  youth  more 
than  old  in  age.  Possibly  they  had  assembled  as  a united, 
invisible  body  to  share  with  Athene  a sacrifice  intended  for 
her  in  the  first  instance.  Though  armed  with  helmet,  shield, 
and  spear  from  her  birth  and  always  ready  for  war,  she  was 


104 


THE  FRIEZE 


at  the  same  time  the  goddess  who  inspired  the  education  of 
youth.  It  was  she  who  taught  young  men  how  to  bridle 
their  horses,  and  young  girls  how  to  spin  and  embroider.  As 
she  sees  the  Ergastinae  advancing  she  may  well  be  pleased. 
She  could  drive  her  own  chariot  on  occasion.  It  may  be, 
therefore,  that  the  preponderance  of  youth  in  the  actual  pro- 
cession through  the  streets  of  Athens  and  on  the  frieze  of 
her  greatest  temple  was  intended  as  a special  honour  for  her. 
Among  the  gods  in  the  east  frieze  she  holds  a position  equal 
to  that  of  Zeus  himself  — she  is  at  the  head  of  one  group  as 
he  is  at  the  head  of  the  other.  Beside  her  and  in  conversa- 
tion with  her  is  seated  Hephaestos,  the  god  of  handicraft  and 
artistic  skill.  In  Athenian  belief  she  was  closely  associated 
with  him.  It  was  he  who  made  the  statue  of  Pandora.  It 
was  she  who  breathed  into  it  the  breath  of  life.  He  was  the 
practical  workman,  she  the  inspiring  genius.  We  recognise 
Hephaestos  easily  when  we  remember  that  he  was  lame.  He 
is  the  only  one  of  the  deities  who  needs  to  use  a staff  for 
support  under  his  right  arm.  That  is  explicit  enough. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  remember  that  the  east 
frieze  of  the  Parthenon  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which 
Pheidias  sculptured  the  great  deities  of  Olympos  in  bas-relief 
and  in  two  separate  groups.  He  did  so  on  the  base  of  his 
great  statue  of  Athene  within  the  Parthenon  itself,  where  the 
subject  was  the  birth  of  Pandora,  the  deities  looking  on. 
On  the  base  of  his  even  more  famous  chryselephantine  statue 
of  Zeus  at  Olympia  he  sculptured  in  gold  the  birth  of  the 
goddess  Aphrodite  in  the  presence  of  the  great  deities,  and 
fortunately  we  know  from  Pausanias  exactly  how  the  scene 
was  disposed.  The  whole  scene  was  bounded  on  the  left  by 


GODS 


io5 

the  rising  sun  (Helios),  and  on  the  right  by  the  waning 
moon  (Selene).  In  the  centre  was  Aphrodite  rising  from  the 
sea,  and  being  received  by  her  son  Eros,  while  Peitho,  the 
goddess  of  persuasion,  crowns  her.  In  the  left  group  were 
Zeus,  Hera,  and  Charis,  one  of  the  Graces,  then  Hermes 
and  Hestia.  In  the  group  on  the  right,  beginning  again  from 
the  outer  extreme,  we  see  first  the  great  deity  Poseidon  with 
his  consort  Amphitrite,  next  Athene  with  Heracles,  and  lastly 
Apollo  with  Artemis,  all  strictly  in  pairs.  The  scheme  of 
arrangement  was  thus  not  unlike  what  we  have  on  the 
Parthenon  frieze,  except  that  the  greatest  deities  were 
nearest  the  outer  extremes,  whereas  on  the  Parthenon  they 
are  nearest  the  centre.  Observe  also  that  in  both  com- 
positions the  Zeus  and  Hera  are  accompanied  by  a secondary 
person,  whom  Pausanias  names  Charis,  or  Grace,  on  the  base 
of  Olympia,  and  we  call  Iris  on  the  Parthenon.  In  each 
case  she  answers,  as  we  have  clearly  said,  to  the  maid  who 
is  so  often  figured  beside  Athenian  matrons  on  the  sepulchral 
stelae. 

We  may  not  unreasonably  assume  that  the  seated  posture 
of  the  gods  on  the  Parthenon  frieze  was  intended  to  suggest 
their  invisibility.  That  does  not  strike  us  as  so  very  singular 
when  we  see  gods  placed  among  legendary  heroes  and  not 
recognised  by  them.  But  when  we  come  to  the  presence 
of  deities  among  mortals,  we  find  ourselves  confronted  by 
spiritual  manifestations  with  which  the  Greeks  were  less 
familiar  and  were  indeed  sceptical  of.  Yet  if  they  believed, 
as  they  did,  that  at  the  battle  of  Marathon  their  hero 
Theseus  and  others  appeared  in  spiritual  form,  Pheidias 
might  well  rely  on  them  to  accept  the  spiritual  presence 

p 


io6 


THE  FRIEZE 


of  the  gods  at  the  Panathenaic  festival.  At  all  events,  that 
was  the  task  he  had  to  accomplish  ; and  surely  it  was  a 
stupendous  task  to  sustain  throughout  the  vast  length  of 
the  Parthenon  frieze  a continuous  illustration  of  ordinary 
life  modified  by  just  enough  of  solemnity  to  foreshadow  the 
climax  when  the  procession  should  arrive  where  the  gods 
were  expected  to  be  present,  and  with  all  this  to  attain 
unity  of  effect. 

Thus  far  we  have  tried  to  explain  the  general  scheme  of 
the  frieze.  We  now  propose  to  discuss  its  execution. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  FRIEZE — continued 

IN  Greek  bas-relief  the  figures  sometimes  appear  as  if 
they  could  be  sliced  off  from  the  background  and  com- 
pleted as  figures  in  the  round,  like  the  AtWat,  or  vertical 
slices  of  men,  represented  on  Greek  stelae,  as  Plato  says.1 
But  were  we  to  try  to  complete  the  figures  of  the  Parthenon 
frieze,  making  them  as  thick  at  the  back  as  the  front,  they 
would  be  merely  flattened  representations  of  men  and  horses. 
We  must,  in  fact,  take  it  that  low  relief  is  in  all  cases 
intended  to  indicate  distance,  when  the  background  loses 
its  importance  and  indicates  mere  space,  with  which  the 
eye  does  not  concern  itself  appreciably.2  But  on  the  Par- 
thenon frieze  there  was  this  in  addition.  The  frieze  could 
only  be  seen  by  looking  up  at  an  acute  angle,  in  which 
case  the  background  was  merely  such  space  as  the  sculptor 
required  to  keep  his  outlines  clear  and  to  give  to  the  eye 
of  the  spectator  the  repose  it  dearly  loves.  The  sculptor 
had  no  exact  rules  he  could  follow.  He  could  not  give 
the  depth  or  projection  to  his  figures  which  would  be  true 

1 Symposium , 19:  Kara  ypoprqv  Ik-  2 Hildebrand,  Das  Problem  derForm, 
T€TVTT(Dp,evoi  Sioltt £7T p lct pkv o l ko.to.  Tas  third  ed.,  p.  So  : Die  Reliefvorstellung 
pieces  yeyovore s iocnrep  AiWcu.  fusst  auf  dem  Eindruck  eines  Fernbildes. 


107 


io8 


THE  FRIEZE 


to  nature  were  the  figures  seen  fairly  close  at  hand.  In 
the  diffused  light  of  the  colonnade  only  the  lowest  possible 
relief  was  permissible.  He  knew  that  a horseman  at  a 
comparatively  short  distance  presents  the  appearance  of  a 
silhouette  with  sharp  contours,  and  that  aspect  of  things 
suited  him  ; but  equally  from  his  own  study  and  knowledge 
of  men  and  animals  he  was  familiar  with  innumerable  points 
of  detail  in  their  life  and  action,  as  seen  close  at  hand,  all 
which  he  set  himself  to  incorporate  with  the  sharp  contours 
peculiar  to  a more  or  less  distant  view.1  He  was  therefore 
obliged  to  improvise  a series  of  receding  planes  in  his 
relief,  which  by  their  exceeding  subtlety  give  an  appearance 
of  distance,  and  yet  are  best  seen  close  at  hand.  The  lower 
the  modelling  and  the  less  the  convexity  of  the  inner  forms 
the  more  effective  become  the  contours,  just  as  the  outlines 
of  a mountain  impress  us  more  when  seen  through  a slight 
mist,  which  partially  obscures  the  multitude  of  nearer  details, 
than  when  seen  in  the  broad  sun.  As  an  example  of  the  lati- 
tude the  sculptor  allowed  himself  in  the  treatment  of  receding 
planes,  let  us  take  two  contiguous  slabs  of  the  south  frieze, 
where  we  see  youths  leading  cows  to  the  sacrifice.  In  the 
one  (xl.)  a youth  is  pulling  back  a cow  with  all  his  might 
by  an  imaginary  rope  fastened  to  the  horns.  Doubtless 
the  rope  had  originally  been  painted  on  the  marble.  The 
shoulders  of  the  cow  are  modelled  with  infinite  care  and 


1 Hildebrand,  Das  Problem  der 
Form , third  ed.,  p.  20 : Das  ruhig 
schauende  Auge  empfangt  ein  Bild 
welches  das  Dreidimensionale  nur  in 
merkmalen  auf  einer  Flache  ausdriickt 
in  der  das  Nebeneinander  gleichzeitig 
erfasst  wird.  Dagegen  ermdglicht  die 


Bewegungsfahigkeit  des  Auges,  das 
Dreidimensionale  vom  nahen  Stand- 
punkt  aus  direkt  abzutasten  und  die 
Erkenntnis  der  Form  durch  ein  Zeit- 
liches  N acheinander  von  Wahrnehmung 
zu  gewinnen. 


QUESTIONS  OF  RELIEF  109 

in  considerable  relief,  so  as  to  show  the  bones  and  muscles 
of  the  animal  in  action.  Every  point  is  brought  out  in 
clear  and  ample  relief.  Vigorous  action  is  thus  accompanied 
by  vigorous  and  bold  sculpture,  as  it  should  be.  The  other 
slab  (xli.)  is  wholly  different.  It  is  perfectly  peaceful.  The 
cow  is  moving  forward  in  the  most  quiet  and  orderly  manner. 
The  youth  by  her  side  has  nothing  to  do  but  to  keep  pace 
with  her.  Had  the  sculptor  chosen  to  model  the  head  and 
shoulders  of  this  cow  in  as  full  relief  as  the  other,  nothing 
would  have  been  said  against  him.  Instead  of  that  he 
has  preferred  the  very  lowest  possible  relief.  In  some 
places  the  relief  is  indeed  so  low  and  faint  that  one  can 
barely  recognise  it,  even  standing  close.  The  youth  by 
her  side  in  the  nearer  plane  is  little  more  than  sketched 
in,  and  that  somewhat  roughly,  as  is  his  right  arm.  In 
ordinary  circumstances  this  lowering  of  the  planes  of  the 
relief  would  mean  greater  distance.  But  this  is  hardly  to 
be  thought  of  here  where  the  one  cow  obviously  follows 
in  the  track  of  the  other.  We  prefer  to  think  that  in 
each  case  the  degree  of  the  relief  has  been  calculated  as 
the  most  suitable  to  the  action  of  each  group,  and  in  that 
case  we  have  here  an  instructive  example  of  what  is  fairly 
common  on  the  Parthenon  frieze,  viz.  the  absence  of  relative 
truth.  That  is  to  say,  each  of  these  two  groups  may  be 
absolutely  true  by  itself  as  an  artistic  representation,  while 
relatively  to  each  other  they  are  not  true.  It  is  often 
charged  against  the  Greeks  that  in  their  best  days  they 
never  succeeded  in  rendering  landscape,  where  the  relative 
value  of  every  object  is  of  the  first  importance.  It  was 
only  in  the  latest  stage  of  their  art  that  they  introduced  a 


I IO 


THE  FRIEZE 


semblance  of  landscape  in  their  painting  and  bas-reliefs. 
Even  then  the  bits  of  landscape,  often  charming  enough, 
lack  the  sense  of  relative  truth.  Very  possibly  the  passion 
for  pure  outline  drawing,  such  as  we  see  on  a vast  array 
of  vases  of  the  best  period,  had  contributed  largely  to  this 
indifference  towards  relative  truth.  When  in  a chariot  group 
of  the  frieze  (N.  xxiii.)  the  nearer  hind  leg  of  the  second 
horse  is  seen  to  be  closer  to  the  front  than  the  farther  leg 
of  the  first  horse,  it  lessens  our  surprise  to  remember  that 
on  the  contemporary  vases,  with  their  excellent  outline  draw- 
ings of  chariot  groups,  it  is  barely  possible  to  recognise  any 
degree  of  distance. 

In  later  art,  such  as  that  of  the  Mausoleum  frieze,  we  may 
observe  instances  of  a warrior  whose  nearer  leg  is  sculptured 
in  almost  its  full  roundness,  while  the  farther  leg  is  little 
more  than  a thin  slice.  The  principle  there  followed  is  that 
the  nearest  plane  should  be  the  most  pronounced.  Yet,  how- 
ever natural  that  may  appear,  we  cannot  accept  the  thin 
farther  leg  as  a reasonable  rendering  of  distance.  There 
is  nothing  so  glaring  on  the  Parthenon  frieze,  where  the 
opposite  principle  is  mainly  pursued  of  making  the  nearest 
plane  the  thinnest,  the  effect  being  that  each  figure  or  group 
rises  from  the  background  in  a solid,  compact  mass.  It  is  in 
fact  one  of  the  great  charms  of  that  frieze  to  watch  the 
extraordinary  skill  with  which  the  sculptor  effects  his 
transitions  from  one  plane  to  another,  but  nowhere  perhaps 
is  this  more  noticeable  than  in  the  east  frieze.  No  doubt 
there  are  instances  of  very  little  care,  as  when  the  right  arm 
of  one  of  the  officials  in  the  left  group,  18,  has  been  simply 
carved  out  of  his  body,  and  that  is  not  the  only  example. 


QUESTIONS  OF  RELIEF  m 

Still  the  fact  remains  that  it  is  the  thinness  of  the  nearest 
plane  which  has  given  the  sculptor  his  opportunity  of  display- 
ing unrivalled  refinement  in  the  modelling  of  his  surfaces. 

In  the  seated  deities  of  the  east  frieze  the  sculptor,  true  to 
his  idea  of  dignity  and  repose,  has  allowed  himself  much 
space,  and  has  avoided  as  far  as  possible  superimposed 
planes.  “ Let  us  begin  with  Zeus,”  30.  His  left  arm  is 
thinned  down  to  a minimum  against  his  body,  while  his 
right  thins  away  into  the  background  of  the  relief.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  right  arm  of  Poseidon,  38,  and  the  left 
of  Hermes,  24.  In  the  Athene,  36,  on  the  contrary,  her  right 
arm  is  drawn  back  in  full  relief,  while  her  left — farther 
from  the  spectator — is  merely  indicated  so  far  as  it  comes 
into  view  at  all.  That  we  may  allow  is  something  in  the 
manner  of  the  Mausoleum  frieze,  and  therefore  not  quite  what 
we  expect.  In  passing  we  may  note  that  the  drapery  of  two 
of  the  gods  on  the  left,  25  and  27,  appears  at  first  sight  as  if 
it  had  been  rubbed  down  till  it  has  become  flat  on  the  surface. 
But  that  is  not  so.  What  has  happened  is  this  : the  sculptor 
has  not  rightly  reckoned  the  thickness  of  relief  he  was  giving 
to  these  figures,  and  has  found  that  when  he  came  to  the 
most  projecting  parts  of  the  drapery  he  had  reached  the 
surface  of  his  marble  too  soon.  In  the  circumstances  he 
was  obliged  to  leave  the  most  prominent  folds  of  the  drapery 
flat  on  the  surface. 

The  next  question  we  propose  to  consider  is  the  different 
number  of  planes  which  the  sculptor  has  employed.  The 
greatest  excess  he  has  reached  is  in  slab  xli.  of  the  north 
frieze.  Here  we  count  no  less  than  five  superimposed 
planes,  and  yet  there  is  not  the  slightest  confusion.  Every- 


I 12 


THE  FRIEZE 


thing  is  as  clear  as  a crystal  pool.  First,  we  have  a horse’s 
head  relieved  against  drapery ; next,  drapery  against  the  bare 
arm  of  the  horseman ; then  the  same  bare  arm  against 
dress  ; then  dress  against  a horse’s  head  ; and,  finally,  the 
horse’s  head  against  the  background.  On  the  next  following 
slab  (xlii.),  where  the  crowding  is  far  less,  we  see  how 
possible  it  was  to  get  into  difficulties.  There  are  two  horse- 
men on  it,  one  mounted,  the  other  on  foot.  Of  the  former 
only  his  right  hand  is  visible.  His  body  may  be  supposed 
to  be  hidden  behind  the  neck  of  the  next  horse,  but  his  lees 
ought  to  have  been  visible  across  the  belly  of  his  horse. 
Clearly  the  sculptor  wanted  about  here  two  spaces  of  back- 
ground to  give  rest  to  the  eye  of  the  spectator,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  throw  into  prominence  the  splendid  group  of 
legs  which  come  between. 

In  the  impetuous  movements  of  the  horses  on  the  long 
sides  we  expect,  first,  a large  measure  of  uniformity  in  the 
action  of  horse  and  rider  so  as  to  carry  the  eye  swiftly 
along ; and,  secondly,  enough  variety  of  detail  to  arrest  the 
eye  at  numerous  points  under  a more  leisurely  inspection. 
It  is,  in  fact,  this  same  combination  of  a strong  undercurrent 
of  variety  of  detail,  with  a more  or  less  marked  uniformity 
in  the  general  design,  which  constitutes  the  charm  of  the 
contemporary  Greek  vases.  The  one  element  is  based  on 
a close  observation  of  nature  ; the  other  on  a distant  view, 
in  which  the  imagination  comes  into  play.  To  our  eyes  there 
is  no  movement  in  nature  so  allusive  in  appearance  as  the 
legs  of  a horse  in  action.  Even  when  he  is  merely  walking 
we  are  tantalized  at  every  moment  if  we  try  to  follow  and 
comprehend  the  system  on  which  his  steps  are  regulated. 


HORSES 


113 


Still  more  is  this  the  case  when  he  advances  rapidly,  except, 
of  course,  when  he  is  at  a gallop,  when  the  action  is  more  or 
less  simple.  Try  as  we  may  to  assure  ourselves  that  the 
nearer  fore  leg  and  the  farther  hind  leg  move  consentaneously 
— or  the  farther  fore  leg  and  the  nearer  hind  leg — yet  in  fact 
the  combined  action  entirely  eludes  our  faculties  of  appre- 
hension. There  is  a magic  in  the  movement  which  surpasses 
our  visual  sense.  We  find  that  same  magic  in  the  horses  of 
the  north  frieze,  particularly  in  slabs  xxxii.,  xxxv.,  xxxvii., 
and  xxxviii. 

In  the  cavalcade  of  the  north  frieze  we  observe  two 
leading  types  of  action  in  the  horses.  In  the  one  the  horse  is 
made  to  display  himself  to  the  fullest  possible  extent  (slabs 
xxviii.,  xxxii.,  xxxiii.,  xxxvii.,  and  others).  His  chest  is  turned 
round  towards  the  spectator  in  nearly  threequarters  view.  His 
farther  fore  leg  is  raised  so  as  to  be  clear  of  the  nearer  one, 
and  thus  entirely  visible.  Similarly,  his  farther  hind  leg  is 
moved  forward  so  as  to  be  clear  of  the  nearer  hind  leg.  In 
the  other  type  his  chest  is  strictly  in  profile  (slabs  xxxi.,  xxxviii., 
and  others). . His  nearer  fore  leg  is  raised,  partially  concealing 
the  farther  one,  while  the  nearer  hind  leg  is  advanced, 
concealing  in  part  the  farther  one.  Both  these  actions 
would  be  wrong  if  it  is  true,  as  has  often  been  said,  that 
a horse  at  a canter  moves  simultaneously  his  nearer  fore  leg 
and  his  farther  hind  leg.  But  instantaneous  photographs 
have  shown  that  in  reality  there  is  nothing  wrong  in  these 
Parthenon  horses.  In  any  case,  it  is  apparent  that  the 
sculptor  has  chosen  these  two  types  of  equitation  from  a 
desire  to  combine  beauty  of  action  with  a measure  of 
formality.  He  prefers  the  type  in  which  the  horse  displays 
Q 


U4 


THE  FRIEZE 


himself  most.  Slab  xxviii.  is  an  example  which  is  more 
than  usually  interesting-  because  of  the  exceeding  lowness 
of  the  relief  in  the  nearest  plane,  the  modelling  of  the  horse 
being  surpassingly  delicate  and  refined.  At  the  same  time 
there  are  occasional  exceptions  where  both  types  of  action 
are  combined,  as  in  slab  ii.  of  the  west  frieze.  This  habit  of 
making  the  nearest  plane  of  the  relief  very  thin  and  the 
modelling  of  the  surface  necessarily  refined  to  the  last  degree, 
recalls  to  our  mind  a pellucid  stream,  where  the  water  is 
shallow,  showing  every  feature  of  the  shelving  rock  beneath. 
The  surface  is  apparently  a smooth  expanse,  yet  it  is  infinitely 
modulated,  as  we  soon  perceive.  The  surface  of  a relief  is 
like  that  of  a stream.  It  may  be  smooth  or  turbulent.  If 
smooth,  we  see  into  the  depths ; if  turbulent,  we  cannot  see 
below.  As  a rule  the  sense  of  what  was  monumental  in 
sculpture  impelled  the  Greeks  to  broaden  the  nearest  plane, 
and  thus  to  approach  as  nearly  as  possible  the  idea  of  stability 
and  permanency. 

The  ears  of  the  horses  may  or  may  not  be  too  small,  but 
in  any  case  the  sculptor  has  been  quick  to  perceive  how  the 
finely  marked  bone  above  the  eye  of  a horse  may  be  made 
to  combine  with  the  ear  close  above  it,  so  as  almost  to 
suggest  a decorative  pattern,  and  yet  be  true  to  nature. 

The  manes  are  usually  hogged,  now  carefully,  now  care- 
lessly rendered.  The  one  striking  exception  is  the  mare 
on  the  west  frieze  rubbing  her  nose  against  her  fore  leg 
(slab  xii.).  There  the  mane  is  uncut,  is  parted  along  the  ridge 
of  the  neck,  and  falls  on  each  side  more  formally  than 
naturally.  But  on  the  west  frieze,  which  was  a scene  of 
preparation  and  start,  we  expect  greater  finish  in  such  details 


HORSES 


“5 


than  on  the  long  sides  with  their  more  excited  movement. 
Negligence  in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  is  most  apparent 
on  the  south  side,  which,  as  we  have  said,  was  the  least 
likely  to  be  inspected  by  visitors.  On  slab  xiii.  of  that  side 
the  mane  of  the  horse  is  good  and  his  action  spirited,  but 
his  head  is  too  big  for  his  body,  and  altogether  he  is  a 
diminutive  creature. 

We  are  accustomed  to  think  that  a long,  flowing  tail  is  a 
beauty  in  a horse.  But  on  the  whole  Parthenon  frieze  we 
find  at  most  two  or  three  instances  of  this.  The  best  is  on  the 
west  frieze  (viii.),  where  we  have  the  incomparable  group  of  a 
rearing  horse  and  a man  vigorously  holding  it  in,  his  mantle 
flapping  in  the  wind.  The  upper  part  of  the  tail  is  modelled 
in  relief,  but  the  lower  part  is  cut  into  the  background,  so  as 
to  reproduce  an  aspect  of  unsubstantiality.  But  as  for  most  of 
the  horses,  it  is  both  curious  and  instructive  to  observe  with 
what  anxiety  the  sculptor  has  studied  to  hide  their  tails 
behind  the  oncoming  horse.  He  must  have  seen  that  with 
the  multitude  of  legs  he  was  bent  on  introducing  he  could 
not  afford  to  let  the  tails  of  the  horses  sweep  downwards 
without  encroaching  on  the  background  of  the  relief,  and 
leaving  too  little  of  it  for  a clear  appreciation  of  the 
numerous  legs  of  the  horses.  Hence  his  efforts  to  get  rid 
of  the  tails  somehow.  That  his  artistic  instinct  was  perfectly 
right  in  the  matter  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  no 
one  notices  the  discrepancy  of  tails.  When,  however,  we 
have  once  noticed  it,  this  discrepancy  becomes  not  altogether 
agreeable.  It  is  unnecessary  to  specify  the  various  instances, 
but  we  may  remark  that  on  one  slab  in  particular  of  the 
south  frieze  (xxii.)  there  is  a tail  which  could  not  be  surpassed 


THE  FRIEZE 


1 16 

for  rudeness  of  execution,  and  even  then  it  is  only  a stump, 
and  the  same  may  be  said  of  another  (xix.).  Be  it 
remembered,  however,  that  gross  carelessness  of  this  kind 
is  only  to  be  seen  on  the  south  frieze,  which,  as  we  have  said 
repeatedly,  was  the  least  likely  to  be  visited.  That  would 
account  for  negligence  of  supervision  in  many  places,  almost 
side  by  side  with  some  of  the  finest  slabs  of  the  whole  frieze. 

In  several  instances  the  young  horsemen  of  the  north 
frieze  are  nude  except  for  a slight  mantle.  Observe  him  on 
slab  xxxvi.,  who  is  turning  in  his  seat,  with  his  left  arm 
thrown  back  easily,  the  right  hand  holding  the  reins.  There 
is  here  a singular  charm  in  the  combination  of  nude  form 
and  slight  mantle,  the  folds  of  which  are  made  to  show  just 
where  they  are  wanted,  on  the  neck  and  the  right  fore  arm. 
They  are  especially  fine  between  the  body  and  the  left  arm, 
where  they  seem  to  thicken  in  the  wind,  and  lose  all  formality. 
We  do  not  suppose  that  there  had  been  in  the  actual  pro- 
cession through  the  streets  of  Athens  any  riders  so 
comparatively  nude,  but  we  do  assume  that  the  sculptor 
required  these  bright  nude  spots  at  intervals,  as  so  many 
restful  points  for  the  eye  of  the  spectator.  In  those  days 
everyone  was  familiar  with  nude,  or  nearly  nude,  figures  in 
works  of  art. 

We  may,  indeed  must,  suppose  that  in  the  actual  procession 
there  had  been  a far  greater  display  of  ceremonial  costume 
than  we  now  see  on  the  frieze,  so  far  at  least  as  concerned 
the  cavalcade.  Here  and  there  we  see  a cuirass,  plain  or 
highly  decorated,  a helmet,  a leather  cap,  a petasos,  a wreath, 
a bare  head,  high  boots,  or  bare  feet.  In  all  these  matters 
there  may  have  been  in  the  procession  through  the  streets 


CHARIOTS 


1 17 


some  settled  order  of  groups  of  horsemen  similarly  costumed 
keeping  together,  as  in  fact  seems  the  case  in  a group  of  the 
south  frieze,  where  they  all  wear  the  cuirass.  But  were  that 
so,  the  sculptor  has  allowed  himself  considerable  freedom. 
The  uniformity  of  costume  is  most  marked  in  the  horsemen 
of  the  north  frieze.  It  is  mainly  the  ordinary  dress  of 
Athenian  youth  of  the  well-to-do  class,  and  it  suits  admirably 
the  rapid  movement  of  the  horses.  We  can  understand  the 
greater  diversity  on  the  west  frieze,  which,  being  more 
stationary,  would  better  display  incidental  varieties  of 
costume. 

We  pass  on  to  the  chariot  groups,  observing  first  of  all 
that  those  of  the  north  frieze  have  a striking  advantage  over 
those  on  the  south  in  one  respect,  important  from  an  artistic 
point  of  view.  Whether  on  north  or  south,  each  chariot  has 
a driver  and  an  apobates  or  armed  youth,  who  leaps  up  and 
down  in  the  manner  of  a Homeric  hero  as  the  chariot 
advances.  Now  the  position  of  the  apobates  was  neces- 
sarily on  the  left  hand  of  the  driver,  from  which  fact  it 
follows  that  on  the  north  frieze,  where  the  movement  is  from 
right  to  left,  the  apobates  appears  in  the  nearest  plane  of  the 
relief,  and  is  thus  fully  displayed  to  the  spectator,  whereas  on 
the  south  frieze,  which  moves  from  left  to  right,  he  is 
necessarily  on  the  farther  side  of  the  driver,  and  would  thus 
in  ordinary  circumstances  be  largely  hidden  from  view,  not- 
withstanding that  he  was  the  principal  person  in  the 
chariot.  Something  could  be  done  by  bringing  the  apo- 
bates farther  forward  than  the  charioteer,  and  thus  showing 
the  upper  part  of  his  figure  as  we  see  from  the  eight  chariots 
of  the  south  frieze  still  existing  in  Carrey’s  time.  At  the 


1 18 


THE  FRIEZE 


present  day  comparatively  little  exists  of  that  section.  But 
vve  possess  one  particularly  splendid  group  (xxx.),  in  which  to 
intensify  the  apobates  on  the  farther  side  the  sculptor  has 
carved  him  deep  into  the  background  of  the  relief.  Possibly 
this  was  a solitary  exception,  for  in  the  group  immediately 
preceding  (xxxi.)  the  apobates  is  not  similarly  cut  into  the 
background,  though  he  is  in  the  same  position  in  the  chariot. 
Still  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  deep  cutting 
of  the  apobates  in  the  other  slab  may  have  been  a protest 
against  the  difficulties  presented  by  the  south  as  compared 
with  the  north  frieze.  And  if  this  apobates  is  striking  by  the 
forceful  manner  in  which  he  is  sculptured,  the  horses  in  front 
of  him  are  even  more  fascinating  by  the  beauty  of  their 
heads  and  necks,  in  which  the  fiery  action  of  the  creatures  is 
concentrated,  as  it  should  be,  within  the  smallest  possible  space, 
and  with  the  most  lovely  transitions  from  one  plane  to 
another. 

Mr.  Ruskin  says1:  “The  projection  of  the  heads  of  the 
four  horses  one  behind  the  other  is  certainly  not  more 
altogether  than  three-quarters  of  an  inch  from  the  flat  ground, 
and  the  one  in  front  does  not  in  reality  project  more  than  the 
one  behind  it,  yet  by  mere  drawing  you  see  the  sculptor  has  got 
them  to  appear  to  recede  in  due  order,  and  by  the  soft 
rounding  of  the  flesh  surfaces  and  modulation  of  the  veins  he 
has  taken  away  all  look  of  flatness  from  the  necks.  He  has 
drawn  the  eyes  and  nostrils  with  dark  incision,  careful  as  the 
finest  touches  of  a painter’s  pencil ; and  then  at  last  when  he 
comes  to  the  manes,  he  has  let  fly  hand  and  chisel  with  their 
full  force,  and  where  a base  workman  (above  all  if  he  had 
1 Aratra  Pentelici , p.  174. 


CHARIOTS 


”9 

modelled  the  thing  in  clay  first)  would  have  lost  himself  in 
the  laborious  imitation  of  hair,  the  Greek  has  struck  the 
tresses  out  with  angular  incisions  deep  driven,  every  one  in 
appointed  place  and  deliberate  curve,  yet  flowing  so  free 
under  his  noble  hand  that  you  cannot  alter  without  harm 
the  bending  of  any  single  ridge,  nor  contract  nor  extend  a 
point  of  them.” 

As  a contrast  we  may  take  the  chariot  group  xvii.  of 
the  north  frieze  which  is  now  in  Athens  and  finely  pre- 
served. The  young  apobates  is  here  in  the  act  of  leaping 
down,  and  thus  clears  the  figure  of  the  driver  fairly  well. 
With  his  shield  thrown  backward,  showing  off  his  youth- 
ful form,  each  arm  extended  quite  naturally,  yet  not  so  as 
to  cross  his  body  in  any  way,  or  complicate  the  planes  of 
the  relief,  a handsome  helmet  and  a very  simple  chiton,  he 
seems  the  very  ideal  of  a young  Greek  playing  in  a public 
ceremony  the  part  of  one  of  the  heroes  of  old.  His  body 
throbs  with  life. 

On  either  frieze  the  section  of  chariots  begins  with  one  which 
has  not  yet  started.  On  the  north,  a groom  or  guide,  such 
as  accompanies  each  chariot,  is  standing  at  the  head  of  the 
horses  (xxiii.).  In  this  group  there  is  no  element  of  distinction. 
But  in  the  corresponding  chariot  on  the  south  frieze  we  find 
exceptional  beauty  (xxv.).  The  guide  at  the  farther  side  of 
the  quiet  horses  is  giving  directions  for  the  start  with  a firmly 
outstretched  right  arm,  modelled  with  the  greatest  care.  The 
apobates  stands  placidly  on  the  nearer  side  of  the  chariot 
full  in  view.  A moment  later  he  will  have  to  take  his 
place  at  the  farther  side  of  the  driver,  and  be  half  hidden. 
Meanwhile  the  sculptor  has  seized  his  opportunity  to  make 


I 20 


THE  FRIEZE 


this  figure  radiantly  beautiful.  The  bare  right  arm  hanging 
idly  over  a chiton  of  fine  folds  is  thus  seen  to  perfection  ; the 
bare  legs  in  an  easy  position,  the  way  in  which  the  shield 
partially  frames  in  the  figure,  the  contrasts  of  draped  and 
nude  form,  these  are  points  which  we  can  all  observe 
and  admire.  To  define  what  constitutes  the  loveliness  of 
the  whole  seems  beyond  the  powers  of  even  those  who  are 
most  moved  by  it. 

In  Carrey’s  time  there  were  still  to  be  seen  six  chariots 
on  the  north  and  eight  on  the  south  frieze.  Since  then 
the  damage  done  to  the  chariot  groups  has  been  so  great 
that  we  can  now  hardly  form  a just  conception  of  the 
original  aspect  of  the  whole.  Apparently  there  had  been 
nine  chariots  on  each  side,  and  from  the  remains  of  them 
we  can  at  best  form  an  opinion  only  of  isolated  groups. 
We  can  see  that  on  both  north  and  south  friezes  there 
had  been  much  variety  in  the  action  of  the  horses,  in  the 
costume  of  the  apobatae,  and  in  the  attitudes  of  the  guides 
accompanying  each  chariot.  Specially  splendid  is  the  frag- 
ment in  Athens  of  the  foremost  chariot  on  the  north  side, 
to  which  we  have  already  referred,  with  the  guide  in  front 
of  the  horses,  violently  checking  them  at  the  point  where 
they  overtake  the  pedestrians  of  the  procession  (xi.). 

We  have  already  mentioned  the  several  sections  of  pedes- 
trians who  preceded  the  chariots,  culminating  in  the  two 
groups  of  girls,  who,  after  having  woven  and  embroidered 
the  new  peplos  on  the  Acropolis,  walked  at  the  head  of 
the  procession,  carrying  wine  vessels,  oenochoae  of  notably 
small  size  from  which  to  pour,  and  phialae  from  which  to 
drink.  These  girls  appear  at  either  end  of  the  east  frieze. 


GIRLS 


I 2 I 


True  to  ordinary  habit,  they  carry  the  oenochoe  in  the  right 
hand,  the  phiale  in  the  left,  the  consequence  being  that  in 
the  left  group  the  oenochoae  are  conspicuous,  in  the  right 
only  partially  visible,  while  similarly  in  the  one  set  the 
phialae  show  the  interior,  in  the  other  the  exterior.  There- 
fore even  in  these  apparently  trivial  matters  we  find  truth 
at  the  expense  of  strict  artistic  balance  between  the  two 
groups  of  girls. 

Several  of  them  carry  a stand  with  a bell -shaped  foot, 
12,  13,  14,  15,  and  56,  57.  In  one  instance  there  is  fixed  on 
the  top  of  this  stand  an  object  resembling  a distaff,  which 
would  be  peculiarly  appropriate.  In  two  instances  in  the  left 
group  of  girls,  12-13,  and  1 4—  i 5 , this  top  piece  is  seen  to 
have  been  separate  from  the  stand,  and  apparently  to  have 
been  made  of  metal,  fitted  into  a deep  socket  in  the 
marble  in  one  of  these  instances,  12,  13.  Tempting,  how- 
ever, as  is  the  idea  of  a distaff,  we  must  revert  to  the 
accepted  definition  of  this  object  as  a thymiaterion , or  incense- 
burner.  At  the  head  of  the  girls  on  the  right  are  two  groups 
of  two  each,  who  carry  nothing  in  their  hands.  At  the  head 
of  those  on  the  left  there  is  only  one  such  group,  with  hands 
falling  idly  by  the  sides.  Both  groups  have  throughout  the 
air  of  school- sfirls. 

In  point  of  execution  we  may  note  that  there  is  a marked 
difference  between  the  slab  of  Ergastinae,  now  in  Paris, 
from  the  right  end  of  the  east  frieze,  50-56,  and  the  slab  next 
following  in  the  Elgin  Room,  59-61.  In  the  Paris  slab,  of 
which  a cast  is  inserted  in  its  proper  place,  we  observe  that 
the  draperies  are  rendered  with  the  utmost  refinement,  the 
folds  being  kept  flat  and  arranged  with  scrupulous  attention. 

R 


122 


THE  FRIEZE 


On  the  next  following  slab  they  are  comparatively  rough  and 
rude. 

We  have  already  considered  one  instance  of  what  we 
called  relative  truth  on  the  frieze.  Others  are  awaiting  us. 
On  the  west  frieze  we  see  a young  horseman  riding  away,  1 1. 
Behind  him  stands  another  youth,  stooping  to  fasten  his 
boot,  12.  In  passing,  one  hardly  observes  any  difference  of 
age  or  otherwise  between  these  two  youths.  But  on  closer 
inspection  we  perceive  that  the  sculptor  has  enlarged  the 
bodily  forms  of  the  stooping  youth  to  the  extent  of  producing 
a vast  disproportion  between  him  and  the  youth  on  horse- 
back. Yet  both  figures  are  perfectly  correct  in  an  absolute 
sense.  It  is  only  relatively  to  each  other  that  the  dispro- 
portion becomes  apparent.  The  same  stooping  figure  recurs 
again  further  on  in  the  west  frieze,  29,  and  it  is  interesting  to 
compare  the  two,  if  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  see  the 
infinite  pains  of  the  sculptor  to  attain  variety  of  detail  as 
subsidiary  to  repetition  of  what  was  practically  the  same 
motive.  In  a scene  of  preparation  and  starting  the  repetition 
of  so  striking  a motive  was  both  natural  and  artistically 
effective. 

On  the  question  of  proportions  in  the  human  figure  we 
may  take  also  a boy  on  the  west  frieze,  6.  His  bodily 
forms  are  greatly  exaggerated,  though  his  head  is  obviously 
that  of  a boy.  The  effect  of  his  exaggerated  proportions 
is  that  his  head  is  nearly  on  a level  with  that  of  his 
master.  The  reason  was  this  : all  through  the  frieze  the 
heads  of  the  figures  are,  as  far  as  possible,  made  to  reach 
about  the  same  level,  whether  they  are  standing  or  seated, 
on  horseback  or  in  chariots.  This  is  described  as  the 


PROPORTIONS 


123 


isocephalism  of  the  Parthenon  frieze.  Apparently  this  was 
an  artistic  law  which  the  sculptor  had  to  obey  as  best  he 
could.  Accordingly  wherever  chariots,  horsemen,  pedes- 
trians, and  seated  figures  were  collected  together,  there 
was  no  possibility  of  preserving  the  strict  relative  truth  of 
the  one  to  the  other,  as  we  see  it  in  actual  life.  We  are 
here  pressing  this  point  of  relative  as  against  absolute  truth 
because  on  the  frieze  there  are  exceptionally  several  in- 
stances in  which  the  sculptor  has  given  with  almost  touching 
effect  the  true  relative  proportions  of  boy  to  man.  There 
is  the  boy  standing  behind  his  master  and  fastening  his 
girdle  (N.  134),  the  boy  handing  up  the  peplos  (E.  35),  and 
the  boyish  figure  of  Eros  leaning  against  the  knees  of 
Aphrodite  (E.  42).  We  can  readily  understand  how  on  a 
long,  narrow  frieze  isocephalism  was  indispensable  for  the 
continuity  of  the  movement  and  the  unity  of  the  whole 
procession.  But  much  the  same  spirit  pervades  the  con- 
temporary Greek  vases.  We  may  add  that  on  the  vases 
also,  as  on  the  frieze,  the  figures  have  at  first  sight  an  aspect 
of  unreality,  arising  apparently  from  the  prominence  of  the 
contours  and  the  careful  toning  down  of  the  inner  markings, 
which  are,  in  fact,  full  of  details  when  looked  into  close 
at  hand. 

Most  of  the  faces  are  in  profile  ; only  a few  are  to  the 
front.  Among  the  latter  we  may  notice  a rider  on  the  west 
frieze,  2.  He  has  thrown  his  body  round  somewhat 
violently  ; his  hair,  longer  than  usual,  streams  out  at  each 
side  ; he  has  had  a metal  wreath,  as  the  drill-holes  in  the 
marble  testify.  Altogether  he  is  one  of  those  striking 
figures  which  were  needed  at  intervals  in  the  cavalcade  to 


124 


THE  FRIEZE 


interrupt  the  uniformity  of  the  movement  by  the  boldness 
of  his  action  and  his  brilliant  nude  form.  Almost  equally 
bold  and  equally  noticeable  is  one  of  the  first  youths  we 
meet  on  turning  the  angle  to  the  north  frieze  (xlii.), 
standing  full  to  the  front,  and  by  his  attitude  requiring 
the  greatest  artistic  skill  to  avoid  ungainliness  and  errors 
of  perspective. 

The  youthful  faces  in  profile  present  in  general  an  air 
of  solemnity,  often  with  the  corners  of  the  mouth  turned 
down.  Occasionally  there  is  an  eager  expression,  as  in 
the  youth  stooping  to  raise  his  hydria,  as  if  he  were  a 
little  belated.  On  the  south  frieze  some  of  the  faces  look 
like  prematurely  aged  youths.  The  eyes  are  mostly  in  side 
face,  which  probably  is  due  to  a lingering  on  of  archaic 
tradition.  The  ear  is  very  carefully  and  finely  rendered ; 
the  hair  avoids  equally  the  conventionalism  of  archaic  and 
the  naturalism  of  later  art. 

In  the  heads  of  the  deities  we  readily  recognise  certain 
known  types,  such  as  Zeus  and  Hera,  Athene  and 
Hephaestos,  much  damaged  as  they  all  are,  except  on 
one  slab  at  Athens,  which  has  been  singularly  well  pre- 
served (vi.).  So  also  the  head  of  Iris  (E.  28)  has 
fortunately  been  preserved  nearly  intact.  But  it  is  not 
easy,  as  we  have  already  said,  to  explain  the  action  of 
her  left  hand,  which  is  raised  to  her  hair,  further  than 
that  it  must  be  meant  to  assist  in  expressing  her  surprise 
at  the  approach  of  the  procession,  as  does  her  mistress 
Hera.  While  pulling  aside  her  veil  with  both  hands,  Hera 
reveals  on  the  left  side  of  her  head  a wreath,  the  leaves 
of  which  have  a fine  serrated  edge,  like  those  of  the  willow, 


DEITIES 


125 


which  was  appropriate  to  her,  seeing  that  the  oldest  tree 
in  Greece  in  the  time  of  Pausanias  was  the  willow  growing 
in  the  court  of  the  temple  of  Hera  in  Samos.1  She  was, 
indeed,  reported  to  have  been  born  under  that  willow. 
Apparently,  also,  the  willow  was  associated  with  the 
marriage  of  Zeus  and  Hera. 

In  Chapter  IX.  we  describe  each  slab  of  the  frieze  in 
consecutive  order. 

1 For  the  willow  wreath  worn  at  the  Schol.  Nicand.  Theriac 71.  The  lygos 

festival  of  Hera  in  Samos  see  Pliny,  appears  also  to  have  been  a symbol  of 
xxiv.  9.  In  the  Thesmophoria  the  chastity, 
women  had  to  sleep  on  willow  branches : 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 

[Plate  XIV.] 

THERE  remains  to  be  considered  the  colossal  statue  of 
Athene.  Compared  with  it  the  external  sculptures 
of  the  Parthenon,  extraordinary  as  they  were  in  extent,  in 
grandeur  and  in  beauty,  were  of  secondary  importance. 
These  external  sculptures  were  not  intended  to  be  other 
than  embellishments  of  a building  destined  to  contain  the 
new  statue,  resplendent  in  gold  and  ivory,  as  was  becoming 
the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  time.  They  have  survived 
in  some  considerable  measure,  but  no  fragment  even  of  the 
great  statue  exists.  What  it  was  like  we  can  only  imagine 
from  certain  descriptions  of  it  in  classical  writers,  and  from 
certain  ancient  copies  on  a small  scale.  From  these  sources 
combined  we  may  gather  some  dim  notion  of  the  splendour 
of  that  famous  work  of  Pheidias.1  At  present  we  have 
nothing  else  to  rely  upon.  We  read  that  the  statue  was 
of  gold  and  ivory,  of  colossal  size,  about  40  feet  in  height, 
standing  upright.  Gold  was  employed  for  the  dress,  which 
fell  in  heavy  folds  to  the  ground ; ivory  for  the  face,  neck, 

1 Plutarch,  Pericles , 31:  •PaSias  6 yei/o/xevos  kcu  peyLcrTov  Trap  avru  Svvrj- 
7rXd(rT'i]s  epyoXd/3os  fjv  tov  ayaA/^aros,  6e is. 

oxnrep  elpr/Tai,'  (/>iAo?  8e  ra  ITe/DtKAei 

126 


DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  STATUE 


127 


arms,  and  feet,  as  also  for  the  Gorgon’s  mask  on  her  breast. 
The  goddess  held  out  on  the  palm  of  her  right  hand  a 
figure  of  Victory,  about  6 feet  high.  At  her  left  side 
stood  a shield,  on  the  outside  of  which  was  sculptured  in 
relief  a battle  of  Greeks  and  Amazons.  On  the  inside  was 
figured  the  war  of  gods  and  giants.  Her  left  hand  rested 
on  the  edge  of  the  shield,  and  also  held  a spear.  Between 
the  shield  and  her  left  foot  was  her  serpent.  On  her  head 
she  wore  a helmet  with  triple  crest.  On  her  sandals  was 
sculptured  a battle  of  Centaurs  and  Lapiths,  and  on  the 
base  of  the  statue  the  birth  of  Pandora  in  the  presence  of 
a number  of  deities. 

Such  is  the  general  description  of  the  statue  as  we  gather 
it  from  ancient  writers.  When  we  come  to  examine  the 
existing  copies,  we  shall  see  how  far  they,  agree  with  this 
description,  and  how  far  they  diverge  from  it.  In  the  mean- 
time there  are  some  practical  questions  which  we  may 
consider.  For  instance,  we  are  told  that  on  another  colossal 
statue  of  gold  and  ivory  by  Pheidias — the  Zeus  at  Olympia 
— his  golden  robe  was  inlaid  with  patterns  of  flowers. 
There  is  no  mention  of  anything  of  that  kind  on  the 
chiton  of  the  Athene  in  the  writers,  and  no  trace  of  it  in 
the  copies.  But  there  was  this  difference  in  the  Zeus  at 
Olympia : he  was  seated,  and  wore  only  a large  mantle, 
wrapped  round  his  legs  in  folds,  which  must  have  presented 
in  many  places  large  and  hard  masses  very  suitable  for 
inlaid  or  enamelled  patterns.  Any  such  enrichment  would 
have  been  lost  on  the  robe  of  Athene,  with  its  deeply  cut, 
close-lying  parallel  folds.  Doubtless  the  scales  of  the  aegis 
on  her  breast  were  brilliantly  enamelled,  but  we  may  fairly 


128 


THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 


assume  that  the  great  mass  of  the  drapery  was  left  in  plain 
gold.  We  have,  in  fact,  some  evidence  on  the  point.  As 
everyone  knows,  Pheidias  was  falsely  charged  with  appro- 
priating part  of  the  gold  given  him  for  the  statue.  His 
answer  was  to  remove  the  gold  and  have  it  weighed,  which 
of  course  could  not  have  been  done  satisfactorily  if  the  gold 
had  already  been  richly  enamelled.  Either  the  charge  was 
made  before  the  inlay  was  put  in  place,  or  there  was  no  inlay 
at  all. 

It  used  to  be  a question  whether  enamelling  in  our  modern 
sense  of  a vitreous  substance  fused  on  to  metal  was  known 
to,  or  practised  by,  the  Greeks,  but  we  think  there  is  proof 
now  that  they  employed  it  on  jewellery  in  small  quantities 
earlier  than  the  time  of  Pheidias.  The  alternative  process, 
when  patterns  were  to  be  executed  on  a large  scale,  was 
to  sink  them  into  the  gold  or  bronze  in  pretty  deep  channels, 
and  then  to  inlay  in  these  channels  pieces  of  vitreous  paste 
made  in  imitation  of  precious  stones.  In  most  of  the 
examples  which  have  survived  the  vitreous  inlays  have  no 
doubt  lost  their  original  brilliancy,  yet,  making  allowance 
for  this  loss,  we  do  not  suppose  that  the  robe  of  the  Zeus 
at  Olympia  had  ever  shone  with  anything  of  the  lustre  we 
see  in  comparatively  modern  enamels. 

Another  technical  question  is  the  manner  in  which  these 
colossal  chryselephantine  statues  were  made.  Speaking  of 
a statue  of  Zeus  at  Megara  by  a pupil  of  Pheidias,  named 
Theocosmos,  Pausanias  says  : “ The  face  was  of  gold  and 
ivory,  the  rest  of  the  figure  of  clay  and  gypsum  . . . behind 
the  temple  lay  half  - finished  pieces  of  wood.  These 
Theocosmos  intended  to  adorn  with  gold  and  ivory,  and  so 


CONSTRUCTION 


129 


complete  the  statue.”  It  would  thus  appear  that  the  process 
of  executing  a colossal  statue  of  this  kind  was,  first,  to 
model  and  set  up  the  figure  in  clay  or  gypsum,  then  to 
replace  the  clay  and  gypsum  bit  by  bit  in  wood,  on  which 
a surface  of  gold  and  ivory  was  attached,  the  wood  being 
carved  so  as  to  express  with  more  or  less  accuracy  the  folds 
of  the  drapery  and  the  general  form  of  the  statue,  and  thus 
reduce  the  thickness  of  the  overlying  gold  and  ivory.  We 
read  also  in  Lucian  ( Somn . sive  Gall.,  24)  that  however 
beautiful  one  of  the  colossal  statues  by  Pheidias  and  others 
might  appear  in  external  aspect,  all  gold  and  ivory,  yet  if 
you  look  inside  them  you  will  find  bars,  bolts,  nails,  logs  of 
wood,  wedges,  pitch,  clay,  and  all  sorts  of  shapeless  things. 
It  is  said  that  the  amount  of  gold  employed  on  the  Athene 
by  Pheidias  was  equal  in  value  to  £10,000  or  ,£12,000, 
and  possibly  on  a statue  40  feet  high,  with  a robe  reaching 
from  the  neck  to  the  ground,  this  quantity  of  gold  would 
have  served  for  a tolerably  thick  covering.  We  know  from 
excellent  sources  that  this  mass  of  gold  was  removable,  and 
we  gather  from  the  expression  used  by  an  ancient  writer 
that  the  removing  of  the  gold  was  like  the  stripping  of  the 
skin  from  an  animal.  It  would  not  necessarily  leave  the 
statue  in  a shapeless  condition.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the 
gold  was  effectually  removed,  if  we  may  employ  so  mild 
a term,  by  Lachares,  an  insurrectionary  leader  in  Athens 
in  the  year  297  b.c.,  after  a siege  and  a long  period  of 
distress.  The  saying  was  that  he  had  left  Athene  nude  ; 
but  this  was  no  doubt  more  rhetorical  than  accurate.  We 
must  rather  assume  that  the  folds  of  the  drapery,  carved 
on  the  wooden  core  as  they  had  been,  would  still  have  been 
s 


130  THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 

effective  in  general  appearance  after  the  gold  had  been 
looted.  We  hear  nothing  of  the  golden  robe  having  been 
restored  subsequently.  For  all  we  know  positively,  the 
statue  may  have  remained  in  its  stripped  condition  to  the 
end.  On  the  other  hand,  the  marble  copies  made  long  after 
the  spoliation  of  Lachares  show  no  signs  of  that  spoliation  ; 
and,  similarly,  the  writer  Pausanias,  who  records  the 
robbery  of  Lachares,  has  shortly  before  described  the  statue 
as  of  gold  and  ivory,  with  no  hint  as  to  whether  the  gold 
had  ever  been  replaced  or  not. 

Pausanias  lived  just  after  the  time  of  the  Emperor 
Hadrian  ; and  the  marble  copies  of  the  Athene  now  known 
are  usually  ascribed  to  that  same  date.  It  is  possible  that 
Hadrian  had  caused  the  golden  drapery  to  be  restored.  For 
we  know  that  he  erected  at  Athens  a chryselephantine  statue 
of  Zeus,  surpassing  in  size  all  other  statues,  says  Pausanias, 
except  the  “ colossi  of  Rhodes  and  of  the  Romans  ” (i.  8.  6), 
“the  workmanship  being  good,”  he  adds,  “considering  its 
size.”  It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  an  emperor  who  loved 
Athens  as  did  Hadrian,  and  spent  so  much  on  its  adornment, 
would  have  left  the  famous  Athene  of  Pheidias  without  her 
golden  robe,  supposing  she  had  remained  in  that  condition 
from  the  date  of  the  spoliation  in  297  b.c.  to  his  time. 

The  process  of  constructing  these  colossal  gold  and  ivory 
statues  was  a subject  that  interested  Pausanias.  When 
speaking  of  the  statue  of  Zeus  at  Olympia,  the  greatest  of 
the  works  of  Pheidias,  he  says,  “On  the  floor  in  front  of  the 
statue  is  a circular  basin  of  black  marble,  with  a rim  of 
white  Parian,  to  contain  olive  oil,  for  that  oil  was  necessary 
to  protect  the  ivory  against  the  damp  of  the  Altis  ” (which 


GOLD  AND  IVORY 


I31 

was  the  local  name  of  the  spot  at  Olympia  where  the  temple 
containing  the  statue  was  erected).  He  proceeds  : “On  the 
Acropolis  of  Athens  the  statue  known  as  the  Parthenos 
requires  not  olive  oil  but  water,  because  of  the  dryness  of 
the  Acropolis,  arising  from  its  elevation.  There  the  ivory 
needs  water,  and  dew  from  the  water.  In  Epidauros,  when 
I asked  why  they  used  neither  olive  oil  nor  water  for  the 
statue  of  Asclepios,  the  authorities  of  the  temple  told  me 
that  the  statue  of  the  god,  and  the  throne  on  which  he  sat, 
were  placed  over  a well”  (vii.  n,  io).  Elsewhere  (vii.  27,  1), 
speaking  of  a statue  of  Athene  at  Pellene,  in  Achaea,  he 
says  : “ There  is  a temple  of  Athene  with  a statue  of  the 
goddess  of  ivory  and  gold.  They  say  it  was  the  work  of 
Pheidias  ere  yet  he  had  made  his  statues  of  Athene  on  the 
Acropolis  at  Athens  and  at  Plataea.  The  people  of  Pellene 
say  that  there  is  a crypt  of  Athene  which  goes  deep  into  the 
earth,  that  this  crypt  is  under  the  base  of  the  statue,  and  that 
the  air  of  the  crypt  is  humid,  on  which  account  it  is  good  for 
the  ivory.”  And  again,  speaking  of  the  sculptor  Damophon 
(iv.  31,  6),  he  praises  him  for  the  skill  he  showed  in  repairing 
the  ivory  of  the  Zeus  at  Olympia,  the  joints  of  which  had 
begun  to  gape  before  the  statue  had  been  more  than  a 
century  or  so  old.  So  that,  if  the  theory  of  Pausanias  was 
right,  there  had  been  more  damp  in  the  atmosphere  at 
Olympia  than  the  large  basin  of  olive  oil  in  front  of  the 
statue  was  capable  of  counteracting.  How  the  moisture  was 
provided  for  the  Athene  in  Athens  we  have  no  particle  of 
evidence  to  show.  There  is  no  trace  on  the  floor  of  the 
Parthenon  of  any  basin  as  at  Olympia.  Were  we  certain 
that  the  Parthenon  had  been  a hypaethral  temple,  with  part 


132  THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 

of  the  roof  open  to  the  sky,  we  could  understand  Pausanias 
when  he  speaks  of  the  water  and  the  dew  from  the  water. 
But  that  is  still  a vexed  question.  We  may  further  assume 
that  the  ivory  in  these  colossal  statues  had  been  stained, 
first,  because  we  know  that  the  staining  of  ivory  was  a 
practice  of  the  Greeks  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Homer ; 
and  secondly,  because  the  innumerable  fine  joints  of  the 
ivory  could  hardly  have  been  concealed  otherwise. 

We  may  never  be  able  to  realise  the  majesty  and 
splendour  of  the  Athene ; but  we  can  see  in  a measure 
what  she  was  like  in  her  pose  and  attributes  from  the 
ancient  copies  in  marble  to  which  we  have  referred  (PI.  XIV.). 
They  are  rude,  unskilful,  and  on  a small  scale,  not  much 
above  statuettes.  As  we  have  said,  they  are  the  work  of 
Roman  times.  Such  copies  were  probably  made  by  the  dozen 
in  Athenian  workshops.1  The  most  complete  is  the  one 
known  as  the  Varvakeion  Athene,  now  in  Athens  (No.  i 
in  Plate  XIV.).  Plainly  enough  the  three  crests  on  the 
helmet  are  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  rest  of  the  figure. 
Yet  the  face  retains  something  of  the  grand  type  of 
Pheidias.  The  copyist  knew  that  the  triple  crest  of  the 
helmet  was  a notable  feature,  and  in  trying  to  get  in  as 
much  detail  as  possible  he  was  driven  to  exaggerate  the 
size  of  the  crests.  We  assume  that  he  is  correct  in  his 
details.  But  here  comes  in  a difficulty.  Pausanias  says, 

1 At  present  we  have  the  following  3 feet  high,  whereas  No.  3 — the  Lenor- 
copies:  (1)  found  near  the  Varvakeion  at  mant  copy — is  much  smaller. 

Athens  ; (2)  found  at  Patras  ; (3)  found  Among  the  marble  copies  of  the  head 
in  Athens ; (4)  now  in  Madrid  Museum.  alone,  are  one  in  Berlin  preserving  some 
The  base  of  the  latter  has  been  re-  of  its  ancient  colours  {Ant.  Denkmdler, 
worked,  but  in  some  respects  this  copy  i.  pi.  3),  and  another  in  the  Louvre 
is  good.  Like  Nos.  1,  2,  it  is  about  {Mon.  Plot,  vii.  (1901),  pi.  15). 


> 

X 

LU 

H 

< 


Q. 


Face  p.  133. 


ANCIENT  COPIES 


i33 


“ The  crest  was  supported  by  a sphinx,”  the  significance 
of  which  he  promises  to  explain  afterwards.  The  statuette 
confirms  that.  Then  Pausanias  goes  on:  “On  each  side 
of  the  helmet  was  a gryphon,”  whereupon  he  runs  off 
into  the  old  tale  of  how  the  gryphons  were  animals 
having  the  body  of  a lion,  but  the  wings  and  beak  of 
an  eagle,  which  guarded  heaps  of  gold  in  a far-away 
country  against  a race  of  men  called  Arimasps,  who 
had  each  only  one  eye.  Apparently  he  had  thought  that 
the  gryphons  had  been  introduced  on  the  helmet  with  refer- 
ence to  the  amount  of  gold  employed  on  the  statue. 
Anyhow  the  statuette  shows  us  winged  horses  or  Pegasi, 
not  gryphons,  on  the  sides  of  the  helmet.  There  must  be 
some  explanation.  It  does  not  seem  at  all  possible  that 
Pausanias  could  have  mistaken  a horse  for  a gryphon,  or 
that  the  copyist  of  the  statuette  would  have  ventured  to  put 
winged  horses  in  the  place  of  gryphons.  Besides,  the 
presence  of  horses  supporting  the  side  crests  is  confirmed 
by  a cameo  in  the  British  Museum  and  by  other  evidence, 
especially  two  large  gold  medallions  in  St.  Petersburg,  which 
were  found  in  a Greek  tomb  in  the  Crimea  (PI.  XV.). 
Both  the  cameo  and  the  medallions  show  on  the  cheek-piece 
of  the  helmet  a gryphon,  and  probably  the  explanation  is  that 
Pausanias  had  overlooked  the  horses  in  his  haste  to  tell  the 
story  of  the  fabulous  gryphons.  The  winged  horses  would 
represent  Pegasus,  whom  Athene  caught  and  bridled,  when 
he  had  sprung  into  existence  from  the  decapitated  body  of 
the  Gorgon.  The  copyist  of  the  statuette  has  omitted  the 
gryphons  on  his  cheek-pieces,  and  we  must  here  mention 
another  omission  on  the  part  both  of  the  copyist  and  of 


i34  THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 

Pausanias.  Neither  of  them  takes  notice  of  the  decoration 
along-  the  brow  of  the  helmet,  which  we  find  in  our  cameo 
and  on  the  St.  Petersburg  medallions,  consisting  of  a row 
of  horses  or  of  alternate  deer  and  gryphons  springing 
forward,  but  visible  only  in  the  foreparts.  The  joint 
evidence  of  the  cameo  and  the  medallions  is  sufficient  to 
prove  the  existence  of  that  rich  element  of  decoration  above 
the  brow  of  the  Athene.  How  splendid  the  effect  must 
have  been  of  all  this  sculptured  ornament  on  the  helmet 
executed  on  so  colossal  a scale  is  now  more  than  we  can 
realise. 

On  the  breast  of  the  Athene  was  her  aeons  of  gold  covered 
with  scales,  and  having  a fringe  of  serpents.  The  scales 
both  of  the  aegis  and  the  serpent  had  been  enamelled, 
doubtless.  In  the  middle  of  the  aegis  was  inserted  in  ivory 
the  mask  of  the  Gorgon  Medusa.  How  Athene  came  to 
have  the  head  of  the  Gorgon  on  her  breast  was  a question 
which  sometimes  perplexed  the  Greeks.  They  knew  that 
Athene  had  helped  Perseus  to  cut  off  the  Gorgon’s  head,  and 
to  escape  with  it  hid  in  his  wallet.  They  knew  also  that  she 
was  sometimes  called  “ Gorgophone,”  or  Gorgon-slayer,  but 
that  title  might  have  been  earned  by  the  assistance  she  gave 
to  Perseus.  Herodotus  (iv.  189),  who  was  a contemporary  of 
Pheidias,  had  an  idea  that  the  aegis  on  the  statues  of  Athene 
had  been  borrowed  from  the  people  of  Libya,  on  the  north 
coast  of  Africa,  where  the  women  wore  goat-skins  wrapped 
about  their  shoulders.  Aegis  means  ordinarily  a goat’s  skin, 
and  of  course  Libya  was  the  habitat  of  the  Gorgon.  Appar- 
ently Herodotus  had  put  these  two  facts  together,  and  made 
his  own  inference  from  them. 


ATTITUDE  AND  ACCESSORIES  135 

But  we  have  in  the  Museum  an  engraved  gem  which 
throws  new  light  on  the  relations  of  Athene  with  the  Gorgon, 
illustrating,  as  it  does,  a part  of  the  myth  which  seems  to 
have  been  lost  with  so  much  else  in  Greek  literature. 
Athene,  after  slaying  the  Gorgon,  has  flayed  the  creature. 
Like  Heracles,  who,  when  he  had  slain  the  lion,  flayed  it  and 
wrapped  the  skin  round  his  shoulders,  so  Athene  stripped 
the  Gorgon  of  her  skin  and  feathers  and  wrapped  them 
round  her  body.  Behind  her  neck  is  to  be  seen  the  face  of 
the  Gorgon ; lower  down  its  snakes  and  wings ; behind  her 
feet  three  drops  of  blood  fall  to  the  ground.  There  should 
only  be  two  drops — the  one  to  destroy,  the  other  to  cure — 
the  bane  and  antidote,  as  they  were  called  by  the  Greeks. 
But  the  gem  engraver  was  probably  thinking  less  of  that 
than  of  illustrating  the  freshness  of  the  slaughter  by  means 
of  the  dripping  blood.  The  gem  is  archaic,  possibly  a 
century  older  than  the  Parthenos,  and  is  therefore  interesting 
as  representing  an  older  and  more  realistic  rendering  of  the 
myth,  which  in  time  had  been  superseded  by  the  conven- 
tional aegis  and  gorgoneion  on  the  breast  of  the  goddess. 

According  to  Pausanias,  the  left  hand  of  Athene  held 
a spear.  In  the  marble  statuettes  there  is  no  spear.  It 
would  have  been  inconvenient  to  insert  one,  and  we  are 
the  less  surprised  by  the  absence  of  the  spear  when  we 
see  that  her  left  hand  is  occupied  in  holding  upright  on 
its  edge  the  shield  at  her  side.  It  has  therefore  been 
customary  to  suppose  that  the  spear  had  been  placed 
leaning  against  the  left  arm,  and  not  held  by  the  left 
hand,  as  Pausanias  says.  But  he  is  proved  to  have  been 
right  by  an  engraved  gem  in  the  British  Museum,  where  the 


136  THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 

left  hand  holds  both  the  edge  of  the  shield  and  the  spear 
(PL  XV.).  It  is  a small  matter,  but  not  unimportant. 
Far  more  interesting  is  another  question  which  this  new 
gem  raises.  It  shows  on  the  right  side  of  Athene  a cippus 
or  low  pillar  surmounted  by  the  owl  of  Athene.  One 
would  have  thought  that  an  owl  was  indispensable,  yet 
Pausanias  makes  no  mention  of  one  in  his  description  of 
the  statue.  Equally  the  marble  statuettes  take  no  notice 
of  the  owl.  But  the  evidence  of  our  gem  is  confirmed 
by  the  gold  medallions  of  St.  Petersburg,  which  show  an  owl 
in  the  field  (PI.  XV.).  To  judge  by  the  workmanship,  these 
medallions  had  been  executed  within  half  a century  at 
most  after  the  Athene  was  finished,  and  so  far  we  have 
seen  them  to  be  accurate  as  copies  of  the  helmet.  If  the 
Athene  had  held  a sceptre  like  the  Zeus  at  Olympia,  we 
could  imagine  an  owl  on  the  top  of  it  corresponding  to 
the  eagle  on  the  top  of  the  sceptre  of  the  Zeus,  but  the 
end  of  her  spear  could  not  have  been  so  decorated.  Be- 
sides, the  shaft  of  the  spear,  shown  on  the  medallions  at 
the  side  of  the  neck  of  Athene,  does  not  slope  as  if  it 
had  any  connection  with  the  owl.  The  shaft  could  easily 
have  been  made  to  slope  towards  the  owl  had  that  been 
the  meaning.  Obviously  the  owl  had  been  inserted  in  the 
field  of  the  medallions  to  represent  a feature  of  the  statue 
lower  down.  Now  we  know  that  the  owl  was  associated 
with  Athene  in  one  of  her  statues  by  Pheidias  in  Athens. 
It  does  not  follow  necessarily  that  the  Athene  Parthenos 
was  meant.1  On  that  point  opinions  were  divided  till  the 

1 Studniczka,  Arch.  Zeit.,  1884,  p.  162,  burg  medallions  may  be  intended  to  be 
notes  the  absence  of  an  owl  on  or  con-  on  the  cheek-piece  of  the  helmet,  but 
nected  with  the  Varvakeion  copy,  and  we  are  not  persuaded, 
thinks  that  the  owl  on  the  St.  Peters- 


ACCESSORIES 


i37 


finding  of  the  Varvakeion  copy.  There  being  no  owl  beside 
it,  the  question  was  allowed  to  drop.  But  in  the  light 
of  the  new  ojem  we  must  reconsider  the  matter.  In  the 
Varvakeion  statuette  the  right  hand,  which  supports  the 
Victory,  rests  on  a cippus  or  pillar.  That  pillar  has  been 
a stumbling-block.  Even  the  Berlin  relief,  on  which 
Athene,  holding  out  a Nike,  appears  to  support  her  hand 
on  a pillar,1  has  not  reconciled  those  who  think  the  pillar 
incongruous  with  the  art  of  Pheidias.  We  must  remember 
that  almost  as  inseparable  from  Athene  in  Athens  as  her 
owl  was  the  olive  tree.  The  presence  of  an  olive  would 
therefore  have  been  highly  appropriate,  the  more  so  since 
it  would  afford  a natural  support  to  her  hand  holding  out 
the  Victory,  much  as  we  see  on  Greek  coins.2 

A copyist  would  readily  simplify  an  olive  tree  into  a pillar. 
An  alternative  is,  however,  suggested  by  the  new  gem. 
Omit  the  owl,  increase  the  height  of  the  cippus  till  it 
becomes  a support  for  the  hand,  and  we  have  the  Varvakeion 
statuette.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  clear  from  the  gem  that 
the  owl  and  cippus  together  had  not  served  as  an  actual 
support  for  the  hand  of  the  goddess,  and  if  that  is  so, 
we  must  conclude  that  no  support  was  necessary,  notwith- 
standing that  a figure  of  Victory  six  feet  high  must  have 
been  of  very  considerable  weight,  even  if  it  had  been 
hollow  and  the  srold  as  thin  as  was  consistent  with  the 
figure  holding  together.  Still,  the  arm  and  hand  of  Athene 
being  of  ivory  plated  on  a core  of  wood,  it  is  conceivable 
that  the  inner  core  may  have  contained  an  iron  support 
having  its  bearings  in  the  body  of  the  statue  and  sufficient 

1 Welcker,  A lie  Denkmaler,  pi.  7.  2 Murray,  Gr.  Sculpt .,  ii.  pi.  11. 

T 


138  THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 

to  carry  the  weight.  That  has  often  been  supposed,  and 
in  view  of  the  ingenuity  of  Greek  workmen  we  cannot 
call  it  unreasonable.  We  must  apparently  discard  the  owl 
and  cippus  as  a possible  support  for  the  hand ; but  equally 
we  must  retain  them  as  part  of  the  original  design  of 
Pheidias,  and  as  probably  being  the  source  of  the  pillar 
which  the  copyist  has  introduced  into  the  Varvakeion 
statuette. 

Let  us  pass  on  to  the  shield.  On  the  outside,  we  are 
told,  was  sculptured  in  relief  a battle  of  Greeks  and 
Amazons.  We  know  that  the  outside  was  so  sculptured 
from  various  pieces  of  evidence,  best  of  all  from  a marble 
copy  of  the  shield  in  the  British  Museum  which  came 
from  Athens  (PI.  XIV.).  In  the  centre  is  the  Gorgon’s  mask, 
and  round  it  are  the  combatants,  rudely  enough  executed  in 
Roman  times.  One  of  the  Greeks  is  figured  as  a nude, 
bald-headed  old  man  wielding  a battle-axe.  Another  beside 
him  has  his  arm  raised  to  strike,  concealing  his  face.  Now 
Plutarch  tells  us  that  Pheidias,  after  the  completion  of  the 
statue,  was  accused  of  having  placed  on  the  shield  portraits 
of  himself  as  a bald-headed  old  man,  and  of  Pericles, 
with  his  arm  raised  so  as  to  conceal  his  face.  For  that 
act  of  sacrilege,  as  it  was  held  to  be,  Pheidias  was  con- 
demned to  prison.  There  are  many  references  to  this 
incident  in  ancient  writers,  and  some  of  them  go  so  far 
as  to  say  that  Pheidias  had  attached  these  two  portraits  so 
cunningly  to  the  shield  that  they  could  not  be  removed 
without  bringing  the  whole  statue  to  pieces.  Therefore 
they  were  left,  though  he  was  punished. 

We  must  accept  it  as  a fact  that  Pheidias  had  been 


THE  SHIELD 


r39 


charged  publicly  with  having  placed  these  two  portraits  on 
the  shield.  The  literary  evidence  is  too  strong  to  be 
ignored.  It  does  not,  however,  follow  that  there  was  any 
truth  in  the  charge.  If  the  Athenians  could  find  in  the 
supposed  Pericles  with  his  arm  concealing  his  face  a portrait 
of  the  statesman  whom  so  many  of  them  detested,  their 
imagination  was  equal  to  a good  deal.  As  regards  the 
supposed  Pheidias,  we  do  not  remember  any  bald-headed 
Greek  in  the  existing  representations  of  the  battle  of  Greeks 
and  Amazons.  But  there  are  bearded  Greeks  in  abundance 
in  such  scenes,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  Pheidias  if  he 
chose  might  not  have  introduced  a bald-headed  Greek 
much  like  the  old  man  in  one  of  the  pediments  of  Olympia. 
That  would  be  quite  enough  for  the  malignant  gossips  of 
Athens.  They  would  say,  “Here  is  old  Pheidias  himself.” 
By  that  time  the  sculptor  was  getting  old,  and  may,  for  all 
we  know  to  the  contrary,  have  been  bald.  Accordingly  he 
was  charged  with  the  crime  of  placing  these  portraits  on  the 
shield,  and  cast  into  prison.  It  is  said  that  he  died  in  prison, 
but  that  is  a point  on  which  there  is  uncertainty. 

Centuries  afterwards  the  story  of  Pheidias  and  the  portraits 
was  well  known,  as  we  see  from  grave  writers  like  Cicero, 
and  we  can  easily  imagine  a late  copyist  improving  the 
occasion  by  making  the  supposed  Pheidias  look  as  like  a 
portrait  as  possible.  That  seems  to  be  what  has  happened 
on  our  marble  shield.  The  proportions  of  the  Pheidias  have 
been  enlarged  so  as  to  make  him  conspicuous,  and  possibly 
also  to  give  an  opportunity  of  indicating  his  features  and  the 
shape  of  his  head.  But  why  does  he  wield  a battle-axe, 
when  Plutarch  says  expressly  that  both  hands  were  employed 


1 4o  THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 

raising  a rock?  Possibly  Plutarch  was  wrong,  and  yet  on 
the  shield  of  another  of  these  ancient  marble  copies  of  the 
Parthenos — the  one  known  as  the  Lenormant  statue  (PI.  XIV.) 
— we  have  a figure  raising  a large  stone  aloft  with  both 
hands,  as  if  about  to  hurl  it.  This  discrepancy  is  the  more 
curious  because  our  shield  is  not  the  only  one  which  shows 
Pheidias  wielding  the  battle-axe.  The  same  occurs  also 
on  a fragmentary  copy  in  the  Capitoline  Museum  in  Rome. 
Apparently  the  ancient  copyists  of  the  statue  alternated 
between  these  two  types  of  Pheidias,  hurling  a huge  stone  or 
wielding  a battle-axe.  Which  of  the  two  was  the  more 
authentic  we  cannot  say.  We  read  in  the  Iliad  occasionally 
of  a combatant  seizing  a piece  of  rock  to  hurl  at  an  enemy. 
But  usually  when  we  see  in  Greek  art  a man  raising  a large 
stone  we  assume  that  he  belongs  to  the  war  of  gods  and 
giants,  where  we  are  accustomed  to  see  rocks  hurled  in  this 
manner.  Now  the  war  of  gods  and  giants  was,  we  are  told, 
figured  on  the  inside  of  the  shield,  and  perhaps  it  is  not  too 
rash  to  conjecture  that  the  copyists  of  these  statuettes  had 
occasionally  transposed  a figure  from  the  interior  to  the 
exterior  of  the  shield. 

On  the  inside  of  the  shield,  as  we  have  said,  was  repre- 
sented the  war  of  gods  and  giants.  It  has  been  supposed 
that  this  subject  on  the  inner  side  had  not  been  sculptured, 
but  painted,  or  rather  enamelled,  and  to  some  extent  that 
view  has  been  lately  confirmed  by  the  finding  of  a rudely 
painted  figure  on  the  inner  side  of  our  shield.  It  is  a figure 
of  an  old  man  stooping  and  raising  a rock  with  both  hands, 
as  Pheidias  was  occupied  in  doing  according  to  Plutarch. 
So  that  in  fact  our  shield  gives  us  a Pheidias  on  the  inside 


DETAILS  OF  THE  STATUE  141 

as  well  as  the  outside,  the  one  wielding  a battle-axe,  the 
other  raising  a huge  stone.  The  original  shield  was  of  gold, 
and  if  we  assume  the  inner  side  richly  enamelled  with  gods 
fighting  against  giants,  we  must  assume  also  that  the  serpent 
had  been  enamelled  in  colours  representing  the  natural  hues 
of  its  scales.  The  same  would  be  true  of  the  owl  on  her 
right  side.  On  her  sandals,  we  suppose  along  the  edge  of 
the  soles,  was  a battle  of  Centaurs  and  Lapiths.  On  the 
contemporary  frieze  of  Phigaleia  in  the  Museum  we  see  how 
Greek  sculptors  when  they  chose  treated  this  legendary 
subject  as  so  much  discursive  fighting  without  any  central 
point  or  climax.  In  the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon  itself  the 
subject  is  broken  up  into  many  isolated  groups.  It  is  there- 
fore not  in  the  least  surprising  that  Pheidias  had  distributed 
his  battle  of  Lapiths  and  Centaurs  equally  on  both  the  sandals 
of  the  goddess. 

We  now  come  down  to  the  base  of  the  statue,  on  which  was 
represented  the  birth  of  Pandora  in  the  presence  of  a 
number  of  deities,  as  we  are  told.  Pandora  had  been 
fashioned  as  a statue  by  Hephaestos,  but  Athene  breathed 
into  it  the  breath  of  life,  and  it  became  a living  woman.  We 
may  assume  that  this  act  of  Athene’s  was  represented  as  the 
central  group  of  the  base,  much  as  on  a fine  vase  in  the 
Museum.  In  Berlin  there  is  a fragmentary  copy  of  the  base 
of  an  Athene  from  Pergamon,  on  which  we  see  a group  of 
deities,  but  cannot  make  much  of  them.  On  the  Lenormant 
statuette  there  is  a rude  sketch  of  the  base,  which  is  so  far 
useful  that  we  can  discern  on  it  at  the  left  angle  a group  of 
Plelios  and  his  chariot,  which  at  once  recalls  to  memory  first 
the  base  of  the  statue  of  Zeus  at  Olympia,  where  Pheidias 


142  THE  ATHENE  PARTHENOS  BY  PHEIDIAS 

sculptured  the  birth  of  Aphrodite,  and  secondly  the  east 
pediment  of  the  Parthenon,  where  he  represented  the  birth 
of  Athene  herself.  Thus  in  all  three  instances  of  birth  we 
find  in  the  left  angle  the  sun  god  Helios  coming  upon  the 
scene  in  his  chariot,  while  in  the  right  angle  the  moon  rides 
or  drives  away,  indicating  the  dawn  of  day  as  the  moment 
of  these  events. 

The  various  copies  of  the  Athene  agree  in  giving  her  a 
long,  low  base,  from  which  we  may  take  it  as  certain  that  this 
was  a feature  in  the  original  statue.  The  Lenormant  copy 
shows  further  that  this  low  base  was  sculptured  only  along 
the  front.  The  whole  scene  would,  therefore,  be  recognisable 
at  once,  the  making  of  Pandora  in  the  centre  with  a number 
of  deities  at  each  side  looking  on,  the  sun  rising  on  the  left 
and  the  moon  setting  on  the  right. 

There  remains  to  be  noticed  the  Victory  held  out  in  the 
right  hand  of  Athene.  On  the  new  gem  the  Victory  is 
reaching  a wreath  towards  the  Athene.  But  on  the  Varva- 
keion  statuette  she  seems  rather  to  have  held  out  a taenia  or 
ribbon,  which  was  the  badge  of  Victory.  Nor  is  she  turned 
towards  the  Athene,  as  on  the  gem.  She  seems  rather  as  if 
she  were  being  sent  forth  on  a mission  by  the  Athene,  with 
the  victor’s  ribbon  ready  on  whomsoever  it  might  at  any 
time  be  fittingly  bestowed. 

Except  on  the  colossal  gold  and  ivory  Zeus  at  Olympia, 
there  has  never  been  in  the  whole  history  of  art,  we  believe, 
a statue  enriched  with  accessory  sculptures  to  a tenth  of  the 
degree  of  the  Athene  Parthenos.  There  was  a time  when  it 
was  hard  to  understand  how  so  much  sculptured  decoration 
could  be  added  to  a statue  without  in  some  manner  detract- 


DETAILS  OF  THE  STATUE 


*43 


ing  from  the  simplicity  and  grandeur  of  the  whole  effect. 
But  the  finding  of  the  marble  statuettes — rude  as  they  are— 
has  removed  every  doubt  on  that  score,  because  they  have 
shown,  the  one  supplementing  the  other,  how  completely  the 
vast  wealth  of  sculptured  ornament  had  been  treated  as  so 
much  accessory,  serving,  in  fact,  to  intensify  the  simplicity 
and  grandeur  of  the  colossal  figure.  We  see  now  how  the 
enormously  rich  decoration  of  the  golden  helmet  was  neces- 
sary as  a set-off  to  the  large,  simple  forms  of  the  ivory 
face,  neck,  and  arms  ; how  the  heavy,  massive  folds  of  the 
drapery,  especially  those  on  the  right  side,  found  a counter- 
poise in  the  richly  sculptured  shield  on  the  left,  with  the 
enamelled  serpent  beside  it ; how  the  ivory  of  her  feet  must 
have  gleamed  above  the  golden  sandals  ; how  the  long  strip 
of  sculptured  base  in  low  relief,  with  heavy  mouldings  above 
and  below,  would  appear  to  reduce  the  sense  of  weight  in  the 
statue,  and  so  help  to  etherealise  the  whole  effect.  And 
what  must  have  been  the  splendour  of  such  a statue,  40  feet 
high,  standing  in  the  gloom  of  a great  interior,  reaching 
almost  from  floor  to  ceiling,  and  representing  the  goddess  to 
whom  the  Athenians  ascribed  their  triumphs  in  peace  as  in 
war,  the  work  of  the  greatest  sculptor  in  the  greatest  age  of 
Greece ! 


CHAPTER  IX. 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE  IN  CONSECUTIVE  ORDER 

North  Side 

Slab  /. — From  Carrey.  With  this  corner  slab  begins  the 
series  of  victims  for  the  sacrifice — cows  and  sheep.  The 
averted  attitude  of  i seems  to  mark  off  this  section  of 
the  procession  as  stopped  here  for  the  moment.  In  an 
artistic  sense  also  this  figure  suggests  just  the  idea  of 
finish  and  completeness  which  was  needed  at  the  abrupt 
angle  of  the  frieze.  Much  the  same  occurs  at  the  other 
angles.  This  slab,  having  on  its  left  return  the  two  girls 
who  were  the  last  of  the  group  of  Ergastinae  on  the 
extreme  right  of  the  east  frieze  E 62,  63  (PL  XVII.,  Fig.  5), 
has  disappeared.  This  and  the  two  following  slabs  are  all 
that  we  now  know  of  the  group  of  cows  being  led  to  sacrifice 
on  this  side  of  the  frieze,  but  probably  the  whole  group  had 
originally  been  as  extensive  as  the  corresponding  group  of 
the  south  frieze,  with  its  nine  cows  forming  an  impressive 
sight,  broken  as  they  are. 

Slab  II. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; the 
original  in  Athens.  In  this  section  each  cow  is  led  by 
two  boys,  one  on  each  side  of  her.  By  this  means  the 
cows  would  be  most  easily  restrained  and  led  on  in  due 


144 


PLATE  XVI.  FRAGMENTS  OF  THE  FRIEZE. 


NORTH  SIDE 


145 


processional  order.  4 has  his  mantle  pulled  up  over 
his  chin  and  his  head  bent,  as  if  with  a sense  of  the 
solemnity  of  the  occasion.  The  cow  following  him  has 
got  frightened,  and  has  to  be  held  in  firmly  by  both  the 
boys,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  vigorous  stride  of  5 and 
from  the  attitude  of  6,  though  the  latter  is  now  much 
injured,  and  known  mainly  from  Carrey’s  drawing.  There 
is  no  indication  on  the  marble  of  the  ropes  with  which 
the  cows  were  led.  There  are  no  drill-holes,  as  frequently 
on  the  horses  of  the  chariots  and  cavalcade,  where  they 
indicate  harness  of  metal.  Probably,  therefore,  the  ropes 
of  the  cows  had  been  merely  painted  on  the  marble. 

Slab  III. — Only  fragments  remain ; in  Athens.  The 
whole  slab  is,  however,  drawn  by  Carrey.  On  the  extreme 
right  he  adds  the  head  and  shoulders  of  the  foremost  of 
the  boys  in  the  next  group  leading  sheep,  whose  mantle 
is  seen  at  the  front  of  the  next  slab. 

Slab  IV. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum ; the 
original  in  Athens.  Three  boys  leading  three  sheep.  These 
docile  creatures  need  no  cords.  It  is  enough  that  the  boys 
have  their  hands  on  them.  Apart  from  the  fine  touch  of 
nature  in  this  group,  we  must  admire  also  the  manner  in 
which  the  dress  of  the  boys  is  detached  from  the  fleece 
of  the  sheep.  In  the  preceding  groups  the  broad,  smooth 
sides  of  the  cows  presented  a marked  and  easily  rendered 
contrast  to  the  dress  of  the  boys  beside  them.  Here  we 
have  an  agreeable  change  in  the  artistic  problem.  The 
folds  of  the  drapery  in  10,  11  had  to  be  intensified,  more 
sharply  defined,  and  crisper,  so  that  the  eye  might  easily 
detach  them  from  the  fleece  of  the  sheep.  On  the  left  leg 
u 


146 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


of  1 1 is  a fine  contrast  of  nude  form  and  drapery.  At  the 
end  of  this  slab  we  have  a figure  12,  who  is  no  doubt  one 
of  the  marshals  of  the  procession  turning  round  towards  the 
next  group  on  Slab  V. 

Slab  V. — The  foremost  figure,  13,  is  in  the  British 
Museum;  the  remaining  two,  14,  15,  are  from  Carrey. 
Here  we  have  again  three  boys.  In  this  instance  they 
are  carrying  on  their  shoulders  trays  of  fruit  or  cakes  for 
the  sacrifice.  Their  action  is  necessarily  monotonous ; yet 
there  is  in  the  management  of  their  draperies  that  unfailing 
charm  of  diversity  which  characterises  Greek  art  at  its 
best,  not  only  in  sculpture,  but  almost  more  so  on  the 
painted  vases. 

Slab  VI. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum ; the 
original  in  Athens.  Again  a group  of  boys,  this  time 
carrying  jars  (hydriae)  full  of  water  on  their  shoulders. 
On  the  right  is  a fourth  boy,  partly  visible,  stooping  eagerly 
to  raise  his  jar  from  the  ground.  The  attitude  would  be 
ungainly  were  the  whole  of  his  figure  visible.  The  least 
attractive  part  of  him  is,  however,  hidden  by  the  oncoming 
flute  player.  The  hydriae  are  made  to  imitate  metal,  as  we 
see  from  the  handles,  and  probably  were  gilt  or  painted. 

Slab  VII.  — From  Carrey.  Only  the  hands,  flutes, 
and  part  of  drapery  of  the  foremost  flute  player,  20,  are 
preserved  on  the  slab  of  the  water-carriers.  Four  boys 
playing  on  flutes,  followed  by  two  other  boys  playing  on 
lyres.  All  are  heavily  draped,  but  the  flute  players  wear  male 
costume,  whereas  the  two  citharists  have  the  dress  of  girls. 
In  public  competitions  for  some  reason  we  frequently  see 
boys  dressed  as  girls,  e.g.  driving  chariots  or  in  musical 


NORTH  SIDE 


147 


contests,  and  in  a public  procession  the  same  rule  would 
apply.  But  why  a distinction  should  here  be  made  between 
the  flute  players  and  the  citharists  we  know  not.  The  head 
of  a third  citharist  is  given  on  PI.  XVI.,  Fig.  8. 

Slab  VIII. — From  casts  in  the  British  Museum ; the 
originals  in  Athens.  We  have  here  two  more  citharists, 
making  up  the  number  of  four,  as  in  the  group  of  flute 
players.  26,  turning  round  to  the  right,  introduces  an 
element  of  variety  in  the  attitudes,  which  is  welcome  after 
the  monotony  of  the  flute  players.  On  the  extreme  right, 
28,  is  the  foremost  of  a large  group  of  men  which  extends 
over  the  next  two  slabs. 

Slabs  IX.,  X. — 29-33  from  Carrey  (see  IX#.  on  plate) ; 
the  rest  from  casts  in  the  British  Museum,  the  originals 
of  which  are  in  Athens.  The  best-preserved  part  of  this 
group  is  the  fragment  of  34-37.  The  figures  that  follow, 
38-43,  are  excessively  flat  in  the  relief  and  sketchy  in 
execution  in  parts.  This  effect  is  intensified  by  the  abrasion 
of  the  faces  and  other  parts.  Yet  this  large  group, 
altogether,  representing  the  manhood  (evavSpia)  of  Athens, 
and  supposed  to  be  carrying  branches  ( thallophori ),  presents 
a singular  felicity  in  the  composition.  35  is  very  happy 
in  the  action  of  the  two  hands  and  the  contrast  between 
the  nude  bosom  and  rich  folds  of  drapery.  To  see  how 
finely  the  slight  alternations  of  attitude  and  costume  operate 
in  giving  life  and  unity  to  the  whole  group,  we  have  only 
to  compare  similarly  large  groups  of  processional  figures 
in  Roman  bas-reliefs,  e.g.  on  the  Ara  Pacis  of  Augustus 
(Petersen,  Ara  Pacis  Augustae , PI.  6).  It  is  true  that  the 
children  who  appear  in  these  particular  Roman  reliefs  intro- 


148  DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 

duce  a new  artistic  element,  which  lends  a touch  of  nature  to 
the  processional  figures  (Petersen,  p.  165),  but  that  hardly 
saves  the  figures  of  the  grown-up  persons  from  dull  monotony. 

Slabs  XI.,  XII. — The  former  from  a cast  in  the  British 
Museum  ; the  original  in  Athens.  Carrey’s  drawing  gives 
the  whole  of  this  chariot  group,  extending  over  these 
two  slabs.  We  have  already  called  attention  to  the 
wonderful  charm  and  beauty  of  Slab  XI.,  so  far  as  it  exists 
now  (p.  1 19).  The  chariot  has  come  on  too  fast.  A young 
man  acting  as  marshal,  44,  has  rushed  to  the  heads  of 
the  horses  to  stop  them  before  they  dash  in  among  the 
men  in  front,  the  last  of  whom  turn  round  in  some  alarm. 
His  right  hand  catches  an  end  of  his  mantle,  folds  show 
between  right  arm  and  side,  rich  drapery  separates  his 
shoulder  from  the  horse’s  head.  The  legs  of  the  horses 
are  more  deeply  relieved  than  in  any  other  part  of  the 
frieze,  yet  the  surface  of  the  relief  is  kept  flat,  and  this 
helps  to  give  it  the  appearance  of  a clear,  smooth  stream. 
The  charioteer,  chariot,  and  apobates  are  wanting.  The 
chariots  of  the  north  frieze,  except  in  Slab  XIV.,  have 
the  pin  of  the  yoke  and  the  gear  for  gathering  the  reins 
sculptured  on  the  marble,  in  contrast  to  those  of  the 
south  frieze,  which  had  these  adjuncts  in  metal  if  at  all. 
Slab  XII.  — Mainly  in  the  British  Museum;  the  upper 
part  of  47  from  a cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; the  original 
in  Athens.  Here  the  young  man,  47,  has  leapt  from 
his  chariot  and  turned  as  if  in  the  act  of  defending 
himself  like  a hero  in  battle.  Consistently  with  his  title 
of  an  apobates,  he  might  leap  up  and  down  in  the  course 
of  the  procession.  He  is  not  to  be  supposed  as  defending 


PLATE  XVII.  PARTS  OF  THE  FRIEZE  AS  DRAWN  BY  CARREY  (i,  3,  4,  5),  AND  STUART  (2). 


NORTH  SIDE 


149 

himself  against  the  oncoming  chariot,  though  he  appears 
in  that  act  in  Carrey’s  drawing,  which  shows  him  with 
the  shield  raised.  On  the  breast  of  his  cuirass  is  a deep 
socket  for  the  attachment  of  some  ornament,  such  as  a 
Gorgon’s  mask  in  metal.  The  charioteer,  46,  dressed  as  a 
girl,  is  hanging  far  back  in  the  chariot ; only  his  hold  on  the 
reins  can  save  him.  Apparently  this  extreme,  not  to  say 
perilous,  attitude  is  due  in  part  to  the  intervention  of  the 
guide,  45,  at  the  further  side  of  the  chariot. 

Slab  XIII. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; the 
original  in  Athens.  The  rest  of  this  slab,  given  in  our 
plate  as  XI I la.,  is  from  Carrey.  Two  fragments  of  the 
marshal,  48,  and  of  the  apobates,  50,  have  been  placed 
conjecturally  here  since  our  photograph  was  made. 

Slab  XIV. — In  the  British  Museum ; the  fore  parts 
of  the  horses  given  in  XI I la.  from  Carrey.  The  drapery 
of  the  guide,  51,  and  the  mane  of  the  horse  are  roughly 
sculptured.  The  apobates  is  in  the  act  of  stepping  down  ; 
the  left  leg  is  extremely  beautiful.  Curiously  enough,  there 
is  a stone  on  the  ground  just  where  the  foot  touches.  No 
indication  of  the  yoke  pin. 

Slabs  XV.,  XVI. — Only  a fragment  remains,  showing 
part  of  the  charioteer  and  apobates,  with  the  legs  of  the 
oncoming  horses.  This  fragment  is  in  Athens,  but  a cast 
of  it  is  in  the  British  Museum.  We  give  these  two  slabs 
in  full,  as  drawn  by  Carrey  (PI.  XVII.).  The  apobates  carries 
shield  on  arm,  but  is  dressed  as  a woman,  with  chiton  girt 
both  at  waist  and  under  the  breasts. 

Slab  XVII. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum;  the 
original  in  Athens.  We  have  already  spoken  (p.  119)  in  the 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


i5° 

highest  praise  of  the  figure  of  the  apobates,  57,  in  the 
act  of  letting  himself  down  from  the  chariot.  Behind  him 
the  marshal,  58,  makes  a somewhat  unusual  display  of 
himself  and  his  mantle.  His  bodily  forms  are  large,  broad 
and  almost  heavy,  presenting  an  even  balance  to  the  ample 
himation.  The  action  of  both  arms  also  are  in  fine  contrast. 
With  more  room  this  figure  would,  perhaps,  be  more  effective; 
he  is  close  pressed  on  the  right  by  the  head  of  one  horse 
and  the  fore  legs  of  two. 

Slab  XVIII. — In  the  British  Museum.  The  guide,  as 
usual  at  the  farther  side  of  the  horses,  is  here  in  a placid 
attitude  turning  to  the  charioteer,  and  in  close  converse  with 
him,  his  left  hand  on  his  arm.  The  right  hand  of  the  guide, 
resting  on  the  crupper  of  a horse,  has  the  fingers  bent, 
expressive  of  some  eagerness.  Here  also  the  composition 
of  the  group  is  very  compact  as  compared  with  the  open 
order  of  some  of  the  preceding  chariots  (Slabs  XI 1 1. -XV I.). 
Both  the  charioteer  and  apobates  are  much  destroyed. 

Slab  XIX. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; the 
original  in  Athens.  The  guide,  62,  is  more  energetic  than 
in  the  preceding  slab,  but  the  composition  of  the  group  is 
almost  as  compact.  A large  fragment  of  an  apobates,  of 
which  a cast  is  in  the  British  Museum  from  the  original  in 
Athens,  has  been  assigned  to  the  right  side  of  the  slab  by 
Mr.  Arthur  Smith  ( Sculptures  of  the  Parthenon , 2nd  ed. 
p.  94).  See  our  PI.  XVI.,  Fig.  7.  The  nearest  horse  has 
his  nearer  legs  advanced,  contrary  to  the  general  rule  in  the 
chariot  groups. 

Slabs  XX.,  XXI. — For  the  sake  of  convenience  we 
accept  with  Michaelis  a horse’s  head  in  Athens  as  part  of 


NORTH  SIDE 


!5J 

XX.  ; a cast  of  it  is  in  the  British  Museum.  The  original 
of  XXI.  is  in  the  British  Museum,  containing  part  of  the 
horses  belonging  to  the  chariot  of  the  next  slab.  Their 
tails  are  very  primitive  in  execution. 

Slab  XXII. — In  the  British  Museum,  with  the  addition 
of  casts  from  fragments  in  Athens,  i.e.  body  of  chariot, 
lower  part  of  apobates  and  groom  up  to  waist,  and  fore  legs 
of  the  horses.  The  apobates,  65,  is  a fine  figure  in  the 
act  of  stepping  up  into  the  chariot  as  it  starts.  The  action 
of  the  left  leg  seems  to  indicate  stepping  up  ; so  also  the 
position  of  the  shield.  He  appears  to  be  pulling  himself 
together  rather  than  letting  himself  go ; and  in  this  manner 
his  whole  figure  separates  itself  definitely  from  the  guide 
or  groom  behind  him,  66.  This  guide  stands  quietly  at 
the  heads  of  his  horses,  holding  the  reins  of  the  foremost. 
His  chariot  has  not  yet  started.  He  wears  only  a chlamys, 
not  the  ample  himation  of  the  previous  guides. 

Slab  XXIII. — In  the  British  Museum.  Chariot  not  yet 
in  motion.  The  left  arm  of  the  apobates,  with  shield,  is 
on  next  slab.  A cast  from  a fragment  of  his  head  has  been 
added. 

Slab  XXIV. — In  the  British  Museum.  Part  of  the  fore- 
most group  of  horsemen.  To  the  front  of  this  slab  is  fitted 
the  fragment  of  shield  and  left  arm  assigned  by  Michaelis 
to  Slab  XXVIII.  of  the  south  frieze. 

Slab  XXV. — Fragment  in  the  British  Museum  from  the 
cavalcade.  In  Carrey’s  drawing  this  fragment  is  followed 
by  the  single  horseman,  77,  given  in  PI.  XVII.,  Fig.  2. 

Slab  XXVI. — In  the  British  Museum.  Horsemen. 

Slab  XXVII. — We  follow  Michaelis  in  assigning  to  this 


l52 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


slab  the  fine  fragment  of  which  a cast  is  in  the  British 
Museum  (PI.  XV.,  Fig.  i),  and  the  marble  head  of  a youth 
in  the  British  Museum  (frontispiece),  formerly  in  Karlsruhe. 

Slab  XXVIII. — In  the  British  Museum  We  have 
already  called  attention  to  this  slab  as  one  of  the  finest 
examples  on  the  frieze  of  the  treatment  of  excessively  low 
bas-relief  in  the  fore  legs  of  the  horses.  The  composition 
is  equally  beautiful,  but  the  slab  is  considerably  damaged. 

Slab  XXIX.—- From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; the 
original  in  Athens.  Here  the  crowding  of  the  previous  slab 
is  compensated  for  by  the  free  space  which  is  given  the 
horseman,  88,  who  turns  round  easily,  with  his  left  arm 
falling  negligently  on  the  flank  of  his  horse,  to  notice  the 
commotion  immediately  behind,  where  a marshal,  89, 
energetically  represses  the  next  horsemen.  This  action  of 
the  marshal,  following  upon  the  easy  bearing  of  the 
preceding  rider,  provides  an  artistic  break  in  the  com- 
position, which  the  spectator  accepts  with  the  greatest 
pleasure  and  admiration.  The  body  of  the  horseman,  88, 
is  heavy  in  the  cast,  but  this  is  really  due  to  the  swelling  of 
the  plaster,  and  is  no  fault  of  the  original. 

Slabs  XXX.,  XXXI. — From  casts  in  the  British  Museum; 
the  originals  in  Athens.  Here  the  advance  of  the  horsemen 
is  more  or  less  leisurely.  The  horse  of  95  shows  only 
the  two  hind  legs,  and  one  of  these  is  almost  completely 
covered  by  a leg  of  the  nearer  horse.  It  is  not  usual  in  the 
frieze  for  one  leg  to  cover  the  other  quite  so  fully  as  here. 
The  manes  are  roughly  rendered,  so  also  is  the  drapery 
of  94,  95.  On  the  whole  this  slab  does  not  rank  high. 
96  repeats  the  favourite  attitude  of  turning  round,  with  the 


NORTH  SIDE 


153 


left  arm  falling  negligently  on  the  flank  of  the  horse.  97  is 
probably  setting  right  his  wreath  with  his  right  hand. 
Between  these  two  slabs  is  a gap. 

Slab  XXXII.—  In  the  British  Museum.  From  this  point 
onward  the  slabs  of  the  north  frieze  form  a continuous 
series,  and  are  all  in  the  British  Museum.  The  absence 
of  horses’  tails,  frequently  noticeable  in  the  cavalcade,  may 
be  observed  here  in  the  horse  of  98.  The  intention,  as  we 
have  already  pointed  out,  was  to  secure  what  we  may  call 
breathing  spaces  between  the  crowded  groups  of  horse’s  legs 
by  omitting  the  tails,  or  hiding  them  as  far  as  possible. 

Slab  XXXIII. — In  the  British  Museum,  is  densely 
crowded,  with  again  the  attitude  of  a rider,  103,  turning 
in  his  seat  to  look  back.  But  this  time  he  is  almost  wholly 
nude,  even  more  so  than  88.  His  mantle  shows  only  on  his 
right  arm  a little  and  at  the  left  side  ; his  left  hand  catches 
the  end  of  the  mantle  on  the  flank  of  the  horse,  but  the 
fine  outlines  of  the  arm  are  lost  behind  the  chest  of  the  next 
horse.  10 1 has  his  back  turned  to  the  spectator  a little. 
It  need  not  be  supposed  that  the  riders  in  the  attitude  of 
turning  round  to  the  front  are  in  any  sense  leaders  of  squads. 
They  are  rather  artistic  necessities  to  provide  breaks  in 
the  general  uniformity  of  a long  line  of  horsemen,  where 
the  spectator  can  rest  and  be  thankful. 

Slab  XXXIV— In  the  British  Museum.  The  horse  of 
106  has  one  forefoot  on  the  ground.  That  is  unusual. 
In  most  cases  both  fore  legs  are  raised.  But  compare  the 
horses  of  122  and  125,  apparently  also  127;  and,  of  course, 
the  horse  of  133  is  standing  still,  with  both  forefeet  on  the 
ground.  A fragment  of  this  slab,  showing  the  hind  legs  of 


x 


i54 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


the  horse  of  106,  has  recently  been  identified  at  the  Museum 
by  Mr.  Arthur  Smith. 

Slab  XXXV. — In  the  British  Museum;  is  a richly 
composed  group,  not  unlike  XXVIII.  in  composition  and  in 
the  extreme  delicacy  and  lowness  of  the  relief.  There  is 
some  crowding,  yet  not  only  is  every  point  clearly  defined 
c’ld  the  whole  action  of  man  and  horse  consentaneous,  but 
there  is  also  throughout  this  slab  a constant  crossing  of 
lines  and  forms  which  stirs  an  inexpressible  sense  of  beauty. 
108  wears  a leather  cap. 

Slab  XXXVI. — In  the  British  Museum.  Here  we  have 
again  the  almost  nude  rider  turning  round  in  his  seat,  with  left 
arm  thrown  back,  hi.  We  have  already  discussed  (p.  1 1 6) 
the  extraordinary  beauty  of  this  left  arm  and  the  moving- 
folds  of  the  mantle  beside  it.  He  is  allowed  more  space 
to  himself  than  in  the  previous  instances,  except,  perhaps, 
88.  But  in  each  case  there  is  the  unfailing  element  of 
diversity  in  some  particular.  The  tail  of  his  horse  is  merely 
sketched  in  against  the  foreleg  of  the  next  horse.  A wide 
space  is  thus  left  on  each  side  of  the  hind  legs  of  his  horse. 
The  effect  is  to  give  prominence  and  repose  as  well  to  the 
figure.  An  attractive  feature  in  1 1 2 is  his  head  just  showing 
over  the  nearer  horse.  The  upper  left-hand  corner  of  this 
slab  has  recently  been  identified  at  Colne  Park,  Essex. 

Slab  XXXVII. — -In  the  British  Museum,  may  be  de- 
scribed as  somewhat  stately  and  more  or  less  normal,  but 
still  full  of  charm. 

Slab  XXXVIII. — In  the  British  Museum.  Introduces 
some  new  elements  of  variety.  116  wears  a helmet  and 
cuirass  ; 117  a leather  cap  ; 1 18  turns  his  back  partly  to  the 


WEST  SIDE 


155 


spectator  in  a perfectly  natural,  but  quite  exceptional,  manner. 
He  is  distinctly  a new  conception.  Very  fine  also  is  the 
crowding  together  of  the  heads  of  the  two  foremost  horses 
and  the  action  of  their  fore  legs,  which,  though  apparently 
identical,  yet  differ  in  this,  that  it  is  the  near  fore  leg  of  the 
second  horse  which  is  raised. 

Slabs  XXXIX.,  XL. — In  the  British  Museum.  The 
former  is  fine  in  composition,  the  latter  much  injured. 

Slab  XLI. — In  the  British  Museum,  is  the  most  complex 
slab  in  the  whole  frieze,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out 
in  detail  (p.  111).  We  need  not  here  enlarge  further  on 
the  number  of  different  planes  in  the  sculpture  and  the 
incomparable  clearness  and  beauty  of  the  work,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  charms  of  the  composition. 

Slab  XLII. — In  the  British  Museum,  is  the  last  slab  on 
the  north  side.  We  have  here  a scene  of  preparation  which 
may  be  described  as  a continuation  of  the  west  frieze.  One 
of  the  horsemen  is  already  mounted,  132.  The  other  two 
are  in  separate  stages  of  preparation.  131,  turned  round 
full  to  the  front,  appears  colossal  in  size  compared 
with  the  mounted  youths  in  front  and  compared  also  with 
the  youth  standing  in  profile  near  by,  133.  The  action 
of  this  latter  figure  and  of  the  boy  behind  him  has  already 
been  discussed  (p.  97).  The  element  of  repose  in  this  slab 
forms  an  admirable  beginning  for  this  side  of  the  frieze.  Of 
130  nothing  but  his  right  hand  is  visible. 

West  Frieze. 

Slab  I. — In  the  British  Museum.  This  solitary  marshal 
is  sculptured  on  the  right  return  of  N.  XLII.  The  placid 


!56 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


lines  and  forms  of  this  figure  as  he  beckons  slightly  to  the 
oncoming  horsemen  provide  an  appropriate  pause  at  the 
angle  of  the  building.  The  corresponding  marshal  on  the 
extreme  right,  30,  is  more  actively  engaged,  yet  he  no 
less  effectively  provides  an  artistic  pause  at  the  angle. 

Slab  //.—In  the  British  Museum,  is  one  of  the  most 
attractive  slabs  of  the  west  frieze.  We  have  noticed  in 
the  north  frieze  a number  of  instances  of  an  almost  nude 
rider  turning  round  in  his  seat,  but  here  in  2 we  have, 
perhaps,  the  finest  example  of  all.  The  raised  left  arm, 
the  flowing  hair,  and  the  flying  mantle  give  him  a peculiar 
distinction.  The  mobile  part  of  the  body  contrasts  with  the 
firm  ribs  and  bones  over  which  the  skin  seems  tightly  drawn. 
On  his  head  there  are  drill-holes  in  the  marble,  which  show 
that  he  had  worn  a wreath.  Apparently  his  left  hand  is 
raised  to  steady  the  wreath.  The  tail  of  his  horse  is  kept 
out  of  sight  to  aid  in  giving  more  space  to  this  figure  than 
the  others  of  his  type  are  allowed.  The  hogged  mane  of 
his  horse  is  finely  worked,  as  indeed  is  every  detail  of  this 
figure.  3 wears  a plain  metal  cuirass,  under  chiton,  and  high 
boots.  The  mane  of  his  horse  is  dashed  about  in  locks. 
The  action  of  the  fore  legs  is  the  same  as'  in  the  preceding- 
horse,  but  the  hind  legs  are  differently  moved. 

Slab  III. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum.  From 
this  point  onward  the  whole  of  the  west  frieze  remains  in 
its  original  place  on  the  Parthenon,  with  the  exception  of 
the  head  and  chest  of  27.  As  a rule  each  slab  contains  a 
separate  group.  The  instances  of  overlapping  are  few  and 
slight.  The  scene  of  preparation  and  start  was  an  open 
space,  doubtless  with  plenty  of  room.  Here  and  there 


WEST  SIDE 


*57 


the  groups  would  be  falling  into  processional  order  ; else- 
where they  would  be  separate.  And  this,  in  fact,  is  the 
impression  which  the  west  frieze  conveys  as  a whole.  The 
casts  here  reproduced  are  those  which  were  made  for  Lord 
Elgin.  In  the  British  Museum  is  exhibited  also  a later 
set  of  casts  from  the  west  frieze,  made  in  1872,  showing 
the  condition  of  the  marbles  at  that  date.  We  have  already 
noticed  the  most  interesting  points  in  Slab  III.,  eg.  the 
action  of  4,  5 (p.  123),  and  the  exaggerated  proportions  of 
the  boy,  6 (p.  99). 

Slabs  IV.,  V. — From  casts  in  the  British  Museum,  do 
not  call  for  any  particular  notice.  7 wears  a cuirass,  and  8 is 
a bearded  man  ; 9,  standing  to  the  front,  is  unattractive. 

Slab  VI. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum,  is 
interesting  because  of  the  helmet,  on  which  is  in  relief  an 
eagle  alighting,  and  the  richly  decorated  cuirass  of  11,  with 
Gorgon’s  mask  on  front,  and  because  of  the  striking  attitude 
of  1 2,  with  his  left  foot  raised  on  a rock  to  fasten  his  sandal 
or  shoe.  The  same  action  recurs  in  29,  but  we  have  already 
compared  these  two  figures  (p.  122),  pointing  out  the  resem- 
blances and  the  differences. 

Slab  VII. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum,  is 
normal. 

Slab  VIII. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum,  is  one 
of  the  boldest  and  most  striking  groups  in  the  frieze. 
The  isolation  of  this  group  alone  arrests  the  spectator, 
and  when  he  comes  to  examine  it  more  closely  he  finds 
that  the  sculptor  has  let  go  his  whole  force  in  characterising 
the  action  of  the  man  as  against  the  horse.  The  mantle 
of  the  man  flaps  in  the  wind  before  our  eyes.  The  whole 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


158 

combination  of  horse,  nude  form,  and  drapery  is  a never- 
failing  source  of  stirring  emotion.  Here  the  tail  of 
the  horse  is  given  in  its  true  form  and  beauty.  The 
head  of  this  figure  has  been  broken  off  since  Lord  Elgin’s 
casts  were  made. 

Slab  IX. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum,  is  finely 
composed,  and  noticeable  also  for  the  petasos  worn  by  the 
second  of  the  riders,  which  lends  a touch  of  diversity  to 
this  group.  The  tail  of  the  former  of  the  horses  is  here 
given  in  a natural  manner. 

Slabs  X.,  XI. — From  casts  in  the  British  Museum,  call 
for  no  special  remarks,  except  that  the  action  of  19  is 
unusual  and  bold,  grasping  at  the  head  of  his  horse, 
his  mantle  flying  back  in  a great  mass.  18  wears  cuirass 
and  turns  his  back  a little  to  the  front.  The  plainness  of 
th  is  figure  is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  richness  of  19. 

Slab  XII.- — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum.  We 
have  already  discussed  the  beauty  and  action  of  this  hand- 
some mare.  22,  23  are  exaggerated  in  their  proportions 
as  compared  with  the  riders  on  the  frieze.  22  stands  with 
his  hands  crossed,  as  if  holding  the  reins.  23  carries  in  left 
hand  a rod  or  baton,  originally  perhaps  a herald’s  staff.  24  is 
a boy  attendant  or  groom. 

Slab  XIII. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum.  This 
slab  has  now  suffered  much  since  the  Elgin  casts  were  made. 
25  is  in  the  act  of  making  the  horse  extend  himself  pre- 
paratory to  mounting. 

Slab  XIV. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum.  Much 
damaged.  The  original  of  the  head  and  chest  of  27  in  the 
British  Museum.  The  fiery  horse  rearing  between  the  two 


EAST  SIDE 


159 


men,  both  straining  against  him,  has  been  an  exceptionally 
grand  composition. 

Slab  XV. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum.  A young 
horseman  putting  on  the  bridle  of  his  horse.  On  the  right, 
29,  is  the  second  of  the  two  stooping  figures  which  we  have 
already  compared  (p.  122). 

Slab  XVI. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum.  A 
marshal  in  the  act  of  putting  on  his  chlamys.  An  incident 
which  by  itself  would  be  trifling  enough  is  here  quite  in 
order,  and  not  the  least  undignified,  because  the  whole  scene 
is  one  of  preparation.  This  is  the  end  of  the  west  frieze. 

East  Frieze. 

Slab  I. — In  the  British  Museum.  A marshal  appropriately 
placed  at  the  angle. 

Slab  II. — 4-6  and  part  of  3 are  from  a cast  in  the  British 
Museum  ; the  original  in  Athens.  2,  3 we  give  from  Carrey 
(PI.  XVII.,  Fig.  4).  These  girls  form  part  of  the  group  ol 
Ergastinae  continued  on  the  next  slab.  Each  carries  in  her 
right  hand  a phiale  for  the  sacrifice. 

Slab  III. — In  the  British  Museum.  Continuation  of  the 
group  of  Ergastinae.  7,  9,  10,  1 1 carry  each  an  oenochoe  in 
the  right  hand.  Probably  8 did  the  same,  but  the  right  hand 
is  now  wanting.  12,  13,  also  14,  15,  carry  between  them  the 
stand  of  an  incense-burner,  as  is  supposed.  We  have  already 
discussed  that  point  (p.  121).  16,  17  carry  nothing;  their 

hands  hang  by  their  sides  as  they  approach  the  two  officials, 
18,  19,  who  are  in  converse,  the  one  turning  to  the  other. 
We  may  here  again  call  attention  to  this  long,  serried  line  of 
girls,  forming  a dense  mass  of  mainly  vertical  lines,  yet  with 


i6o 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


many  agreeable  variations,  produced  by  the  gentle  movement 
of  a foot  or  in  the  costume  itself.  This  close  uniform  mass 
of  figures  prepares  us  to  expect  as  we  go  on  at  least  a strong 
contrast  of  figures  in  open  order.  We  see  from  the  bearing 
of  these  young  girls  that  something  very  solemn  is  near  at 
hand.  The  official  19  is  in  the  attitude  of  leaning  on  his 
staff,  but  the  upper  part  of  the  staff  is  omitted  in  the  marble  ; 
the  lower  part  appears  in  front  of  his  legs,  which  here  are 
cast  from  a fragment  in  Athens. 

Slab  IV. — In  the  British  Museum.  The  first  four  figures, 
20-23,  are  officials  like  the  two  preceding,  18,  19.  We 
have  thus  altogether  six  officials,  broken  up  into  three 
groups  of  two,  each  group  turning  in  converse,  and  each 
consisting  of  a bearded  man  and  a young  man.  From  the 
silent  march  of  the  girls  w'e  here  pass  on  to  a scene  of 
conversation.  We  leave  the  slight  forms  of  the  girls  and 
arrive  at  robust  manhood.  From  a general  uniformity  of 
movement  and  costume  in  the  Ergastinae  we  get  a rich 
variety  of  both  in  the  men.  Yet  in  these  men  there  is  no 
studied  diversity  of  attitude  or  dress.  The  whole  group 
is  perfectly  natural.  The  men  are  waiting  for  their  duties 
to  begin.  Observe  that  the  last  figure  of  the  group,  23, 
has  his  back  turned  to  the  deities  beyond,  unconscious  of 
their  presence. 

The  remainder  of  this  slab  consists  of  four  seated  deities, 
turned  mainly  in  the  direction  of  the  advancing  procession. 
The  first,  24,  is  Hermes,  identifiable  by  the  cap  or  petasos 
on  his  left  thigh,  by  his  boots,  though  they  are  not  winged 
as  would  be  expected,  and  by  his  chlamys  with  its  brooch. 
The  next,  25,  may  be  Apollo,  leaning  affectionately  on  the 


EAST  SIDE 


161 


shoulder  of  Hermes.  26  may  be  Artemis,  the  twin  sister 
of  Apollo,  holding  her  torch  in  her  left  hand.  Certainly 
these  two  figures,  25,  26,  are  closely  interlaced,  and  this  is 
hardly  explicable  except  as  indicating  the  twinship  of 
Apollo  and  Artemis.  27  is  generally  accepted  as  Ares.  The 
Ludovisi  statue  of  Ares  is  in  this  same  attitude,  whatever 
the  attitude  may  betoken.  Crossing  his  left  ankle  is  a band 
of  some  kind,  but  what  it  indicates  is  not  clear.  We  have 
already  accounted  for  the  flat  surface  of  the  folds  of  the 
drapery  in  this  slab  (p.  1 1 1 ).  The  rich  dress  of  Artemis  forms 
a fine  contrast  to  the  nearly  nude  gods  on  each  side  of  her. 

Slab  V. — In  the  British  Museum.  This  immense  slab 
contains  not  only  the  chief  deities,  but  also,  in  the  very 
centre,  the  head  of  the  procession,  31-35.  On  the  left  we 
have  Hera  and  Zeus,  the  former  attended  by  her  winged 
maid  Iris,  28.  The  head  of  Iris  is  from  a cast  in  the 
British  Museum  ; the  original  in  Athens.  Zeus  holds  his 
sceptre  in  his  right,  but  leans  his  left  arm  back  on  his 
throne,  while  his  consort  Hera  is  surprised,  pulling  her  veil 
aside.  Iris  shares  in  the  surprise  of  her  mistress,  raising 
her  left  hand  to  her  hair.  Apparently  we  have  here  a slight 
conjugal  scene.  Possibly  it  is  the  new  robe  of  Athene 
which  has  awakened  the  jealousy  of  Hera.  At  the  other 
extreme  of  the  slab  are  Athene,  36,  and  Hephaestos,  37.  We 
have  already  discussed  these  figures  in  detail  (pp.  89  and  103). 
In  the  centre,  as  we  have  said,  is  the  head  of  the  procession, 
consisting  of  a priest  on  the  right  receiving  the  peplos  from 
a boy,  on  the  left  a priestess,  33,  receiving  stools  brought 
to  her  by  two  girls  (Diphrophori),  the  former  of  whom 
carries  also  in  her  left  hand  what  appears  to  be  a footstool. 

Y 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


162 

Drill-holes  in  the  marble  show  how  the  leo;s  of  the  stools 
had  been  attached.  The  priest,  34,  is  a most  dignified 
figure.  The  boy  wears  an  ample  himation,  befitting  a grand 
ceremony.  The  central  group  as  a whole  seems  completely 
overpowered  by  the  size  and  number  of  the  deities  on  each 
side.  Had  the  priest  with  his  stately  figure  been  placed 
in  the  centre  of  the  group,  this  effect  of  isolation  would 
have  been  less  marked  ; but  doubtless  he  was  intentionally 
placed  on  one  side  to  help  out  this  sense  of  separation. 

Slab  VI. — 38-40  from  a cast  in  the  British  Museum;  the 
original  in  Athens.  38  is  probably  Poseidon,  and  39  may  or 
may  not  be  Dionysos.  Poseidon  would  have  held  a trident 
in  his  left  hand  ; Dionysos  a thyrsus  in  his  left  hand.  40  is 
a goddess  associated  with  Aphrodite,  behind  whom  she  sits. 
Her  head  is  preserved  almost  completely,  and  is  a splendid 
example  of  the  Athenian  type  of  beauty  in  those  days.  In 
Carrey’s  drawing  Aphrodite  leans  on  the  knee  of  this  goddess. 
Aphrodite  and  Eros,  41,  42,  are  from  a cast  in  the  British 
Museum,  obtained  from  a cast  in  the  Louvre  which  had  been 
made  from  this  slab  before  it  was  broken  up,  previous  to  the 
time  of  Lord  Elgin.  The  right  foot  of  40  is  in  the  Museum 
of  Palermo  ; a fragment  of  the  knee  of  Eros  is  in  Athens. 
F'rom  the  same  Paris  cast  come  the  head  and  legs  of  43  ; 
the  head  and  shoulders,  the  legs  and  right  forearm  of  44  ; 
the  head,  chest,  and  lower  legs  of  45  ; the  whole  of  46  ; the 
head,  chest,  right  arm,  and  feet  of  47  ; top  of  head,  right 
forearm,  and  legs  of  48.  The  remainder  of  this  slab  was 
brought  home  by  Lord  Elgin. 

In  Carrey’s  drawing  (PI.  XVII.,  Fig.  3)  Aphrodite  is  veiled, 
and  thus  corresponds  to  the  Hera  towards  the  other  end. 


EAST  SIDE 


163 


She  also  has  a winged  attendant  beside  her,  who  holds  her 
parasol.  She  leans  her  right  arm  on  his  shoulder  and  points 
out  to  him  the  advancing  group  of  girls.  The  body  of  Eros 
is  unsurpassed  in  the  purity  and  simplicity  of  its  forms. 
Had  the  parasol  with  its  circular,  concave  surface,  and  the 
wings  with  their  elliptical,  concave  surfaces,  been  complete, 
that  would  have  been  an  additional  charm. 

43-46  form  a close  conversation  group  : in  the  centre  an 
old  man  leaning  on  the  shoulder  of  a young  man ; at  each 
side  an  old  man  turning  towards  the  central  group.  The 
old  man,  43,  with  his  back  turned  to  Eros  and  the  deities 
is  unconscious  of  the  presence  of  these  immortals.  On  the 
right  of  this  group  is  a young  man  who,  with  raised  right 
arm,  seems  to  be  calling  those  before  him  to  order.  This 
is  a noble  figure.  The  next  two,  48,  49,  are  turned  away  to 
meet  the  girls.  Apparently  they  are  both  young  men.  49 
holds  in  both  hands  what  appears  to  be  a phiale.  52,  the 
foremost  of  the  officials,  is  already  advanced  among  the 
Ergastinae.  49  and  52  are  practically  repeats,  as  also  are 
the  girls  50,  51  and  53,  54.  Thus  the  group  of  officials  on 
the  right  of  the  deities  is  widely  different  in  detail  from  the 
corresponding  group  on  the  left. 

Slab  VII. — 49-56  from  a cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; the 
original  in  the  Louvre.  49-54  have  been  described  in  con- 
nection with  the  last  slab.  We  may  add  that  the  four 
Ergastinae  who  come  first  carry  nothing ; their  hands  fall  by 
their  sides.  55  carries  a phiale,  as  may  also  have  done  56, 
but  her  right  hand  is  mostly  broken  off.  She  is  turning 
round,  and  with  her  left  hand  has  helped  the  next  figure  to 
carry  the  incense-burner. 


164 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


Slab  VIII. — In  the  British  Museum.  57  carries  before 
her  an  incense-burner  on  stand.  58,  59  carry  oenochoae, 
60,  61  phialae.  The  heads  of  57,  59,  60  are  restored 
by  casts  from  fragments  in  Athens.  On  this  side  the 
Ergastinae  are  in  very  open  order  compared  with  those 
on  the  left  extreme.  58  and  59  repeat  each  other,  as  do 
also  57  and  60. 

Slab  IX.  (PI.  XVII.,  Fig.  5). — From  Carrey.  These  two 
figures,  62,  63,  appear  also  to  have  carried  phialae.  They  are 
the  last  of  the  group  of  Ergastinae.  At  the  angle  behind 
them  there  is  no  marshal  as  at  the  opposite  end  of  this 
frieze.  The  fragmentary  head  of  a girl  in  our  PI.  XVII., 
Fig.  3,  must  belong  to  one  of  these  Ergastinae. 

South  Frieze. 

Slab  I. — 1-3  from  a cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; the 
original  in  Athens,  much  damaged.  The  ends  of  the  mantle 
of  3 flap  behind  the  horse’s  mane  of  2 with  a curious  but 
beautiful  effect  of  contrast  between  the  broad  flat  folds  and 
formal  lines  of  the  mane.  4,  in  the  British  Museum,  well 
preserved. 

Slab  II. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum;  the  original 
in  Athens,  much  damaged. 

Slab  III. — In  the  British  Museum.  Behind  8 is  the 
mouth  of  a horse.  Stuart  gives  the  rest  of  his  head,  his 
neck,  and  chest.  In  front  of  the  right  knee  of  9 are 
drill-holes,  such  as  are  left  in  pointing  sculpture.  The 
inference  is  that  this  leg  had  originally  been  planned  to 
fall  in  the  ordinary  manner,  but  for  some  reason,  perhaps 
for  variety,  it  had  been  bent  in  its  present  somewhat 


SOUTH  SIDE 


i65 

ungainly  manner.  We  have  already  noticed  the  deep  cutting 
behind  8.  The  manes  of  the  horses  are  fine,  with  pointed 
locks.  On  the  right  is  the  long,  wavy  tail  of  the  horse  on 
Slab  IV. 

Slab  IV. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum ; the 
original  in  Athens,  except  a fragment  on  extreme  right, 
which  is  in  the  British  Museum.  This  slab  is  given  by 
Stuart  as  following  upon  Slab  III.,  though  the  tail  on  that 
slab  hardly  suits  the  horse  of  this  slab.  On  the  left  hand 
upper  corner  of  Slab  IV.  is  something  which  does  not  look 
like  the  forelock  of  the  horse  on  III. 

Slabs  V.-  VIII. — In  the  British  Museum.  Stuart  adds  a 
fragment  of  the  head  and  chest  of  12.  All  much  damaged, 
except  head  of  13,  turned  round  with  animation,  and  16,  with 
his  long  neck  and  grave  face,  his  chiton  roughly  rendered. 
The  horses  of  14  and  16  are  decidedly  small. 

Slabs  IX— XIII. — In  the  British  Museum.  As  we  have 
already  said,  this  cavalcade  on  the  south  frieze  possesses 
comparatively  few  of  the  charms  we  have  found  in  the 
cavalcade  of  the  north  frieze.  IX.,  the  upper  part  fairly 
well  preserved,  especially  head  of  25,  which  again  is  poor  in 
type.  The  manes  of  the  horses  are  merely  blocked  out,  as 
in  VIII.  The  dress  of  24,  25  is  extremely  rough,  most  of 
all  the  chiton  of  25.  X.  is  on  the  level  of  the  north  frieze  in 
point  of  style  and  execution,  the  heads  of  26  and  28  quite  so. 
XL,  the  head  of  29  is  turned  round  to  the  front,  and  this, 
with  his  cuirass  and  high  boots,  gives  him  an  air  of  dis- 
tinction. Mane  of  horse  of  28  rough  and  straggling.  XII., 
badly  preserved,  except  head  of  33,  which  is  fine.  XIII., 
both  riders  wear  the  cuirass  and  high  boots.  Head  of  35 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


1 66 

drilled  for  wreath,  his  horse  very  small  and  fiery,  the  head 
and  chest  modelled  with  exceptional  fulness  of  detail. 

Slab  XIV. — From  a cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; the 
original  in  Athens,  much  destroyed. 

Slab  XV. — In  the  British  Museum,  much  injured. 

Slabs  XVI. -XVII I. — From  casts  in  the  British  Museum; 
the  originals  in  Athens.  Ordinary  work  ; note  amount  of 
space,  which  seems  unnecessary,  between  43  and  44. 

Slab  XIX. — In  the  British  Museum,  with  fragment  of 
cast  from  Athens  in  upper  left-hand  corner.  The  head  of 
48  in  Athens  is  given  by  Michaelis.  See  also  our  PI.  XVI., 
Fig.  4.  The  tail  of  the  horse  is  merely  blocked  out ; and 
again  we  have  an  apparently  unnecessary  space  in  the  middle 
of  the  slab. 

Slab  XX. — Lower  part  from  cast  in  the  British  Museum  ; 
the  original  in  Athens.  The  whole  was  drawn  by  Carrey. 
See  XX«.  on  our  Plate. 

Slab  XXI. — In  the  British  Museum.  Head  of  52  and 
head  of  horse  of  51  from  cast  of  fragment  in  Athens. 

Slab  XXII. — In  the  British  Museum.  The  tail  of  the 
horse  is  excessively  rude,  and  the  drapery  of  this  slab  is 
very  poor.  In  the  upper  right-hand  corner  are  casts  of 
two  fragments  of  horses’  heads  in  Athens  which  Michaelis 
had  assigned  to  XXIV. 

Slab  XXIII.— From  Carrey,  now  lost. 

Slab  XXIV. — In  the  British  Museum.  The  wheel  of  the 
chariot  and  the  legs  of  the  apobates  are  given  along  with 
Carrey’s  drawing  of  the  preceding  slab.  Michaelis  assigns 
to  this  slab  a fragment  in  Athens  (PI.  XVI.,  Fig.  2),  but  only 
on  conjecture.  At  the  lower  right-hand  corner  is  a cast 


SOUTH  SIDE 


167 


from  a fragment  in  Athens  which  gives  the  legs  of  the  horses 
of  this  slab  and  part  of  the  wheel  of  the  chariot  on  next  slab 
(XXV.).  This  slab  does  not  seem  particularly  fine,  so  far  as 
it  now  exists.  No  drill-holes  for  reins  nor  any  sign  of  the 
yoke  pin. 

Slab  XXV. — In  the  British  Museum,  is  one  of  the  best 
of  the  chariot  groups,  and  is  characterised  by  extreme 
refinement  in  the  execution  as  well  as  by  poetic  conception. 
The  apobates  stands  quietly,  but  ready  to  mount  the  chariot, 
the  guide  stretches  forth  his  arm  vigorously  to  the  charioteer, 
the  horses  not  yet  started,  the  dress  of  the  guide  filling  up 
the  space  between  their  legs.  These  are  all  highly  attractive 
features  in  this  slab.  The  pins  for  the  reins  and  yoke  have 
been  in  metal,  but  are  now  lost. 

Slabs  XXVI.,  XXVII. — From  Carrey,  now  lost.  Two 
chariot  groups.  The  fragment  given  in  our  PI.  XVI.,  Fig.  5, 
may  be  the  upper  left-hand  corner  of  XXVI.  This  fragment 
is  assigned  to  XXVII.  by  Michaelis.  Mr.  Arthur  Smith 
suggests  XXIV.  of  this  frieze. 

Slab  XX  VIII.-—  As  given  by  Michaelis  consists  only  of 
a fragment  of  an  arm  of  an  apobates  with  shield,  which  has 
been  fitted  to  left-hand  side  of  Slab  XXIV.  of  the  north 
frieze. 

Slab  XXIX. — In  the  British  Museum.  Not  very  good 
work.  Cast  of  fragment  in  Athens  at  lower  left-hand  corner 
of  slab.  No  drill-holes  for  reins  nor  any  sign  of  the  yoke  pin. 

Slab  XXX. — In  the  British  Museum.  The  most  splendid 
of  all  the  chariot  groups.  We  have  already  (p.  1 18)  discussed 
the  deep  cutting  around  the  apobates  and  the  play  of  light 
and  shade  around  him,  and  the  charioteer  and  the  chariot. 


DETAILS  OF  THE  FRIEZE 


1 68 

Note  also  the  fiery  manes  of  the  horses  and  extremely  fine 
modelling  of  their  heads,  bodies,  and  legs.  Drill-holes  on 
the  marble  show  where  metal  reins  had  been  attached  to 
the  pin  of  the  chariot. 

Slab  XXXI. — In  the  British  Museum.  Manes  unfinished, 
much  damaged.  There  are  drill-holes  for  reins  and  pin  of  yoke. 

Slabs  XXXI I. -XXXIV. — From  Carrey,  now  lost.  Two 
chariots  overtaking  group  of  men,  of  whom  four  are  given 
in  Slab  XXXIV. 

The  fragment  given  in  our  PI.  XVI.,  Fig.  6,  may  belong 
to  one  of  these  four  men.  The  original  fragment  is  in 
Athens  ; a cast  in  the  British  Museum. 

Slab  XXX V.— In  the  British  Museum.  Part  of  the 
group  of  men  (Thallophori)  as  in  north  frieze,  continued 
from  preceding  slab  and  on  next  following. 

Slab  XXXVI. — From  cast  in  the  British  Museum;  the 
original  in  Athens.  Part  of  group  of  men. 

Slab  XXXVII. — From  Carrey.  Group  of  citharists, 
as  in  north  frieze.  Presumably  these  citharists  also  had  been 
preceded  by  flute  players,  water  carriers,  and  tray  bearers, 
none  of  which  have  been  here  preserved,  except  a fragment 
of  a tray  bearer  inserted  on  Slab  XLI.,  upper  left-hand 
corner. 

Slab  XLI. — In  the  British  Museum.  From  this  point 
through  the  next  five  slabs  the  order  of  Michaelis  has  been 
changed,  but  we  have  found  it  advisable  to  retain  his 
numbers.  We  have  already  discussed  the  different  artistic 
qualities  of  XLI.  and  XL.  (p.  108).  Attached  to  the  upper 
right-hand  corner  of  this  slab  is  a fragment  which  Michaelis 
had  assigned  to  XLI  1 1. 


SOUTH  SIDE 


169 

Slab  XXXIX. — In  the  British  Museum.  A youth 
pulling  at  a cow  with  great  energy,  his  left  foot  planted 
on  a rock,  which  turns  up  in  a handy  manner,  as  not 
unfrequently  on  the  Parthenon  frieze.  His  right  knee  is 
very  sharply  bent.  There  is  a fine  combination  of  drapery 
and  nude  form  in  this  figure,  to  say  nothing  of  the  vigour 
of  his  action. 

Slab  XL. — In  the  British  Museum.  This  slab  is  notable 
among  the  others  for  its  somewhat  higher  relief,  its  far 
greater  finish,  and  the  display  of  energy  in  the  composition 
without  any  approach  to  loss  of  dignity. 

Slabs  XLII.  and  XXXVIII. — In  the  British  Museum. 
The  cows  and  their  leaders  move  placidly  along,  so  much 
so  that  the  marshal,  121,  has  time  to  turn  round  to  the 
front  and  put  up  both  hands,  to  steady  his  wreath  apparently. 
On  the  right  of  XLII.  Michaelis  gives  head  of  125  from 
fragment  in  Athens. 

Slab  XLIII. — In  the  British  Museum.  Consists  only 
of  two  heads  of  boys  and  part  of  a cow.  The  head  and 
shoulders  of  126,  which  Michaelis  assigns  to  this  slab,  has 
been  fitted  to  XLI.,  as  already  noted.  He  gives  also  con- 
jecturally  a foot  which  may  belong  to  this  slab. 

Slab  XLIV. — In  the  British  Museum.  The  last  of  the 
cows  and  the  end  of  the  south  frieze.  The  group  of  nine 
cows  in  this  part  of  the  procession  is  solemn  and  impressive, 
notwithstanding  its  fragmentary  state.  The  last  figure  of 
all  is  a marshal,  as  is  also  the  first  figure  round  the  angle. 


z 


INDEX 


A 

Aglauros,  44 

Agoracritos,  pupil  of  Pheidias,  8 
Alcamenes,  contest  with  Pheidias,  8 ; 

pupil  of  Pheidias,  8 
Amazonomachia,  81 
Amazons,  63 

Amphitrite,  18, 43;  on  base  at  Olympia, 
105 

Antenor,  71 

Aphrodite  rising  from  sea,  104;  on 
frieze,  90,  92,  103,  162  ; birth,  39, 
43 ; in  the  gardens,  8,  46 ; west 
pediment,  24 
Apobatae,  117 

Apollo  on  base  at  Olympia,  105,  160 
Ara  Pads  Augustae,  147 
Ares  Ludovisi,  160  ; on  frieze,  92,  160 
Artemis  on  base  at  Olympia,  105  ; on 
frieze,  92,  160 

Asclepios,  temple  at  Epidauros,  9,  131 
Assos,  frieze  of,  5 

Athene  and  Hephaestos,  sanctuary,  23 
Athene,  base  of,  from  Pergamon,  141 
Athene  on  frieze,  91,  103  ; Gorgo- 
phone,  134;  at  Pellene,  131  ; at 
Plataea,  13 1 ; on  base  at  Olympia, 
105  ; birth  of,  30,  33 
Athene  Parthenos,  49,  126  fol.;  copies, 
132  ; gold  medallions,  133  ; aegis, 
134 ; gem,  135  ; cippus,  137  ; Victory, 
137,  142;  and  Nike,  49;  base  of, 
33  ; chariot  of,  17 
Auxo,  39 


B 

Boards  of  supervision,  9 
Boys  on  frieze,  97  fol. 

Buziges,  25 

C 

Callicrates,  architect,  7 
Callirrhoe,  22,  24,  28 
Carpo,  39 

Carrey,  doubts  concerning,  14 
Cavalcade,  North,  151  ; South,  164 
Cecrops,  16,  25  ; as  judge,  20;  daugh- 
ters of,  21,  38,  39,  42 
Centauromachia,  76,  127,  141 
Centaurs,  54  fol. 

Cephalos,  35,  37,  41,  42,  46,  51 
Cephisos,  27 

Charioteers  of  deities,  20 

Chariots,  117,  148 

Charis  on  base  at  Olympia,  105 

Choiseul-Gouffier,  10 

Chryselephantine  sculpture,  129  fol. 

Citharists,  146 

Cnidos,  Treasury,  32 

Cockerell’s  reconstruction,  51 

Colours  on  sculpture,  51 

Cosmo,  102 

Cows,  100,  144 

D 

Deities,  invisible,  19,  30,  32 ; on  frieze, 
89  fol.,  160 
Delphi,  curtain,  21 
Demeter  on  frieze,  92 


INDEX 


172 

Dew  Maidens,  44,  45 
Dionysos  on  frieze,  103 
Diphrophori,  161 

E 

Elgin,  Lord,  removal  of  sculptures,  n, 
86  ; casts  of  west  frieze,  1 1 
Ephesus,  archaic  temple,  5 
Erechtheus,  22 

Ergastinae,  88,  120,  144,  159,  163 
Eros  on  base  at  Olympia,  104 ; on 
frieze,  90,  92,  162 
Ethiopia,  feast  of  gods,  32 
Ethiopians,  90 
Euripides,  47 

F 

Fates,  41,  44,  45,  47 
Flute  players,  146 

Frieze,  83  fol. ; subject,  84;  condition, 
86  ; details,  144  fol. 

Furtwaengler,  25,  42,  50 

G 

Gigantomachia,  80 
Girls  on  frieze,  102 

H 

Helios,  31,  33,  34,  36,  14 1 
Hephaestos  on  frieze,  92,  103,  104 
Heracles,  labours,  62 
Hera  on  frieze,  90,  91,  103  ; wreath, 
124  ; of  Samos,  125 
Hermes  on  frieze,  92  ; in  west  pedi- 
ment, 18,  19 
Herse,  44 

Horae,  38,  39,  43,  44 

Horses,  action  of,  1 1 3 ; ears,  114; 

manes,  1 1 4 ; tails,  1 1 5 
Hydrophori,  100,  146 

I 

Ictinos,  architect,  7 
Uissos,  22,  24,  26 
Ion  at  Delphi,  97 

Iris,  21,  38;  on  frieze,  90;  head,  124, 
161 


L 

Lachares,  129 

Lapiths,  54  fol.  ; torso  of,  7 

Louvre,  slab  of  frieze  and  metope,  10 

Ludovisi  throne,  39 

Lycabettos,  23 

M 

Madrid  Puteal,  30,  41,  48 
Marriage  of  Zeus  and  Hera,  125 
Mausoleum,  Amazons  of,  79 ; frieze, 
82,  no 

Medea,  Lateran  relief,  57 
Metopes,  53  fob;  fragments  in  Copen- 
hagen, 74 
Mithraic  relief,  34 
Morosini,  Venetian  general,  9 

N 

Nereid  monument,  43 
Nik&,  48 

Nointel,  Marquis  de,  10 
Nymphs  on  bronze  relief,  24 

O 

Officials  on  frieze,  93 
Olive  tree,  137 

Olympia,  east  pediment,  13 ; west 
pediment,  57  ; metopes,  6,  62  ; base 
of  Zeus,  26,  33,  43, 104, 141  ; throne 
of  Zeus,  38  ; Victory  of,  49 
Olympos,  31,  33 

P 

Paeonios,  49 

Panathenaic  games,  84,  96 ; pro- 
cession, 85 

Pandora,  104,  127,  141 
Pandrosos,  44 
Panther’s  skin,  71 

Pediment,  west,  subject  and  compo- 
sition, 1 5 ; east,  subject,  29 ; com- 
position, 12 

Peitho  on  base  at  Olympia,  104 
Peplos,  88,  96 
Persephone  on  frieze,  92 
Pheidias,  portrait  of,  138  ; appointed 
by  Pericles,  7 


INDEX 


*73 


Phigaleian  frieze,  55,  70,  72,  82 
Plato,  Critias,  23  ; \l<rrrai,  6 
Pnyx,  23 
Polygnotos,  71 

Poseidon  on  base  at  Olympia,  105  ; 

chariot  of,  17  ; on  frieze,  92,  103 
Priest  on  east  frieze,  161 
Proportions,  relative,  122 

R 

Relief,  degrees  of,  107  fol. 

River  gods,  25,  26 
Ruskin,  118 

S 

Seasons,  38 

Selene,  33,  47  ; horse’s  head,  34 

Sheep,  100,  145 

Shield  of  Athene,  138 

Ship  on  wheels,  88 

St.  Petersburg  vase,  16 

Strassburg  papyrus,  9 

Sun  and  moon  as  boundaries,  32 


T 

Thallo,  38 

Thallophori,  147,  167 
Theocosmos,  128 
Theoxenia,  96 

Theseum,  frieze  of,  5,  32,  53  ; metopes, 

63 

Theseus,  east  pediment,  35,  46,  51  ; 

at  Marathon,  105 
Thymiaterion,  121 
Trapezo,  102 

V 

Venetian  bombardment,  9 
Victory,  18,  48 

W 

Water-bearers,  100,  124 
Willow,  125 

Z 

Zeus  on  frieze,  91  ; at  Olympia,  robe, 
127  ; ivory,  131  ; at  Megara,  128 


PLYMOUTH 

WILLIAM  BRENDON  AND  SON 
PRINTERS 


SELECTED  WORKS 
FROM  MR.  MURRAY’S  LIST 


THE  HISTORY  OF  SIENA.  By  Professor  Langton  Douglas.  With  Maps, 
Photogravures,  and  other  Illustrations.  Medium  8vo.  25 x.  net. 

A GLIMPSE  AT  GUATEMALA,  and  some  Notes  on  the  Ancient  Monuments  of 
Central  America.  By  Annie  Cary  Maudslay  and  Alfred  Percival  Maudslay. 
With  Map  and  Plans,  74  Photogravures,  2 Chromo-Lithographs,  4 Lithographs,  and 
other  Illustrations.  4to.  £4  4s.  net. 

THE  WALLS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE.  Studies  of  the  Topography  of  the 
Byzantine  City  and  adjacent  Objects  of  Interest.  By  Alexander  van  Millingen, 
M.A. , Professor  of  History,  Robert  College,  Constantinople.  With  Plans  and  Illus- 
trations. 4to.  2 ix.  net. 

“Is  worthy  of  the  reputation  of  its  author  and  the  richness  of  its  subjects,  in  topography,  in  scientific 
illustration,  and  in  research.  . . . Should  be  a text-book  alike  for  the  traveller,  the  artist,  the  archaeologist, 
and  the  student  of  history.” — Frederic  Harrison,  in  the  Speaker. 

AUTHORITY  AND  ARCHEOLOGY,  SACRED  AND  PROFANE.  Essays 
on  the  relation  of  Monuments  to  Biblical  and  Classical  Literature.  By  the  Rev.  S.  R. 
Driver;  Ernest  A.  Gardner,  M.A.;  F.  LI.  Griffith,  M.A.,  F.S.A.;  F.  Haver- 
field,  M.A.,  F.S.A. ; The  Rev.  A.  C.  Headlam,  B.D. ; D.  G.  Hogarth,  M.A. 
With  an  Introductory  Chapter  on  the  General  Value  of  Archaeological  Evidence, 
its  Capabilities  and  Limitations,  by  the  Editor,  David  G.  Hogarth,  Director  of 
the  British  School  at  Athens.  Demy  8vo.  i6x. 

“No  one  will  question  the  competence  of  the  Editor  and  his  staff  of  experts  in  their  own  departments; 
and  all  through  the  book  there  is  a calm,  judicial  tone,  which  wins  confidence  at  once.  . . . All  scholars  will 
find  the  book  useful,  and  to  many  it  ought  to  be  indispensable.” — Athcnceum. 

THE  TEMPLE  OF  MUT  IN  ASHER.  A Narrative  of  Excavations  at  Karnak, 
with  an  Account  of  the  Discoveries  made  and  their  connection  with  the  History  and 
Religion  of  Egypt.  By  Miss  Margaret  Benson  and  Miss  Janet  Gourlay.  The 
Inscriptions  and  Translations  by  Percy  E.  Newberry.  With  Map,  Plans,  and 
Illustrations.  Demy  8vo.  2ix. 

“The  book  is  filled  with  a detailed  account  of  the  results  of  three  years  of  exploration,  and  surprisingly 
valuable  they  prove  to  be — so  much  so,  indeed,  that  it  is  impossible  to  indicate,  even  in  general  terms,  the 
light  which  they  cast  on  the  religion  of  ancient  Egypt  and  the  historic  annals  of  vanished  dynasties.  There 
are  illustrations  in  the  volume,  as  well  as  plans,  and  many  facts  of  far-reaching  significance." 

Leeds  Mercury. 

SPIRALS  IN  NATURE  AND  ART.  A Study  of  Spiral  Formations  based  on  the 
Manuscripts  of  Leonardo  Da  Vinci,  with  special  reference  to  the  architecture  of 
the  Open  Staircase  in  the  wing  of  Francis  I.,  at  the  Castle  of  Blois,  in  Touraine, 
now  for  the  first  time  shown  to  be  from  his  designs.  By  Theodore  Andrea  Cook, 
M.A.,  F.S.A.,  Author  of  “Old  Touraine,”  “Rouen,”  etc.,  etc.  With  a Preface  by 
Professor  E.  Ray  Lankester,  F.R.S.,  etc.,  Director  of  the  British  Museum  of 
Natural  History.  With  Illustrations.  Large  crown  8vo.  7 x.  (3d.  net. 

GREEK  COINS  AND  THEIR  PARENT  CITIES.  (New  Issue,  with  Portrait 
of  Lord  Dufferin,  to  whom  the  work  was  dedicated.)  By  John  Ward,  F.S.A., 
Author  of  “Pyramids  and  Progress,”  “The  Sacred  Beetle,”  etc.  Being  a description 
of  the  Author’s  Collection  of  Greek  Coins,  with  Autotype  Illustrations  of  upwards  of 
800  Pieces  from  the  Author’s  Collection,  accompanied  by  a Catalogue  by  G.  F.  Hill, 
M.A.,  of  the  British  Museum.  The  Volume  also  contains  a Topographical  and 
Historical  account  of  the  countries  which  produced  the  Coins,  with  upwards  of  500 
Illustrations,  4 Maps,  and  many  Portraits.  Crown  4to,  gilt.  25X.  net. 

“The  public  is  greatly  indebted  to  collectors  who  thus  do  their  best  to  make  the  public  sharers  in  their 
possessions.” — Spectator. 

“This  is  a work  of  original  design  and  of  singular  fascination.  . . . The  illustrations  of  the  coins  are  so 
admirably  rendered  that  they  show  the  minute  workmanship  almost  as  well  as  it  can  be  seen  on  the  pieces 
themselves.”— Morning  Post. 


LONDON:  JOHN  MURRAY. 


SELECTED  WORKS  FROM  MR.  MURRAY’S  LIST. 


GREEK  TERRA-COTTA  STATUETTES.  By  Marcus  B.  Huish,  LL.B. 
With  many  Collotype  Illustrations.  Crown  4to.  21  s. 

“Mr.  Huish  has  gone  into  the  whole  subject  very  fully,  and  traces  the  terra-cotta  statuettes  in  all  ages 
and  countries.  . . . Altogether  a very  charming  as  well  as  a learned  volume.”— Daily  News. 

HORNS  OF  HONOUR.  And  other  Studies  in  the  Byways  of  Archaeology.  By 
Frederick  T.  Elworthy,  Author  of  “The  Evil  Eye,”  “The  Dialect,  “The 
Grammar  and  the  Word  Book  of  West  Somerset.”  With  many  Illustrations.  Large 
crown  8vo.  icw.  6d.  net. 

“.  . . A most  valuable  contribution  to  the  history  of  human  customs  and  superstition.” — Glasgow  Herald. 

THE  SACRED  BEETLE.  A popular  treatise  on  Egyptian  Scarabs  in  Art  and 
History.  By  John  Ward,  F.S.A.,  Author  of  “Pyramids  and  Progress,”  etc.  With 
500  Examples  of  Scarabs  from  the  Author’s  Collection,  many  Royal  Portraits,  and 
other  Illustrations.  The  Translations  by  F.  Llewellyn  Griffith,  M.A.  Demy 
8vo.  10s.  6 d.  net. 

“.  • ; Not  only  every  student  of  Egyptology,  but  all  who  are  interested  in  antiquities,  will  be  charmed 
with  this  beautiful  and  instructive,  yet  never  pretentious,  volume.” — Spectator. 

THE  WALLS,  GATES,  AND  AQUEDUCTS  OF  ROME.  By  Thomas 
Hodgkin,  D.C.  L.  With  Maps.  8vo.  2 s.  6d. 

THE  FRESCOES  IN  THE  SIXTINE  CHAPEL  IN  ROME.  By  Miss 
Evelyn  March  Phillipps.  With  24  Illustrations  and  a Photogravure  Frontis- 
piece. Crown  8vo.  6s.  net. 

“Miss  Phillipps  has  written  a handy  book,  which  travellers  intelligently  interested  in  Italian  Art  could, 
greatly  to  their  advantage,  take  with  them  to  Rome.  . . . The  volume  is  well  suited  to  its  purpose,  and  that 
purpose  is  one  which  may  be  warmly  commended.” — Times. 

ISABELLA  D’ESTE,  MARCHIONESS  OF  MANTUA,  1474-1539.  A Study 
of  the  Renaissance.  By  Julia  Cartwright  (Mrs.  Ady),  Author  of  “Beatrice 
d’Este,”  “Madame,”  “ Sacharissa,”  “The  Painters  of  Florence,”  etc.  With  Illus- 
trations. 2 vols.  Demy  8vo.  255-.  net. 

THE  PAINTERS  OF  FLORENCE.  From  the  Thirteenth  to  the  Sixteenth  Century. 
By  Julia  Cartwright  (Mrs.  Ady).  With  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo.  6r.net. 

“An  excellent  handbook  ...  of  great  use,  both  to  travellers  in  Italy  and  to  those  who  wish  to  learn  the 
outlines  of  Florentine  art  history  in  the  galleries  at  home.” — Times. 

THE  ARTS  IN  EARLY  ENGLAND.  By  G.  Baldwin  Brown,  M.A.,  Professor  of 
Fine  Art  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh  ; formerly  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 

Vol.  I. — The  Life  of  Saxon  England  in  its  Relation  to  the  Arts. 

Vol.  II. — Ecclesiastical  Architecture  in  England  from  the  Introduction  of  Chris- 
tianity to  the  Norman  Conquest. 

With  Illustrations.  2 vols.  Royal  8vo. 

THE  FINE  ARTS.  The  Origin,  Aims,  and  Condition  of  Artistic  Work  as  applied 
to  Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture.  By  G.  Baldwin  Brown,  M.A.,  Professor 
of  Fine  Art  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh  ; formerly  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College, 
Oxford.  New  edition.  With  many  new  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo.  6s.  net. 

“ It  is  a work  that  ought  to  be  in  the  library  of  all  thoughtful  students  of  Art.” — Literary  World. 

A CONCISE  DICTIONARY  OF  GREEK  AND  ROMAN  ANTIQUITIES. 

Based  on  Sir  William  Smith’s  Larger  Dictionary,  and  incorporating  the  results  of 
Modern  Research.  Edited  by  F.  Warre  Cornish,  M.A.,  Vice-Provost  of  Eton 
College.  With  over  1,100  Illustrations  taken  from  the  best  examples  of  Ancient  Art. 
Medium  8vo.  21  s. 

“ To  students  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics  no  more  valuable  aid  of  its  kind  has  lately  been  furnished 
than  is  the  new  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities,  which  has  been  edited  by  Mr.  F.  Warre 
Cornish,  M.A.,  Vice-Provost  of  Eton  College.  The  work  is  derived  from  Sir  William  Smith’s  well-known 
standard  work  with  the  same  title,  but  by  no  means  from  that  alone.  Not  only  have  articles  been  combined, 
recast,  or  wholly  rewritten,  but  the  latest  assured  results  of  discovery  and  learned  research  have  been  incor- 
porated, and  the  book  has  been  enriched  by  more  than  two  hundred  new  illustrations.  It  is  the  product  of 
infinite  care  and  large  educational  experience,  working  with  the  accumulated  fruits  of  the  best  modern 
scholarship,  and  rarely,  if  ever,  has  a finer  treasury  of  learning  been  more  admirably  condensed  into 
moderate  compass.” — Scotsman. 


LONDON:  JOHN  MURRAY,  ALBEMARLE  STREET,  W. 


TRANS.  FROM 
PL '93 


